of Directors of the Al ei 


Tam” 


A. & M. COLLEGE 
OF TEXAS. 


“Held a F int iw La eal 
Visca 24: and mee ‘T91s 


‘ it To Inauire: Into and | eine ial neate Conesentag Recent Spe 
i leatinannial of Teh atne at ‘the A. & M. College of Texas se ite 


LIBRARY 
TINIVERSITY OF ILLENOT: 


24 MAY 1313 


The Board of Directors of the A. & M. College convened in the Con- 
~ vention Hall of the Westbrook Hotel, Fort Worth, Texas, at 10 a. m., Feb- 
ruary 24, 1913. 


Present: Walton Peteet, President of the Board; John I. Guion, L. J. 
Hart, J. Allen Kyle, R. L. Bennett. Ed R. Kone, Directors; [ke Asburn, Sec- 
retary; R. T. Milner, President of the College; Charles Puryear, Dean; D. 
W. Spence, Secretary of the Faculty; Lieutenant Levi G. Brown, Com-. 
mandant of Cadets; Hon. E. G. Senter, CSN complaining students 
and citizens; and numerous citizens. 


Hon. Walter Peteet, President of fie Board, aeted as Chairman of the 
meeting, 


* ¥ ee 


4 


ay 


WINES 
ey 


THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen: This 
gathering today is to attend the meeting 
of the Board of Directors, which has been 
called at the suggestion of the Governor 
of the State, to give an opportunity to 
all who have complaints to be made 
with respect to recent breaches of dis- 
cipline at the College. You have seen 
these complaints. In order that the 
Board of Directors may consider them 
along with other matters to come to 
their attention, and be governed by them 
in the future government of the College, 
at my request several days ago, Hon. 
Ek. G. Senter, representing a body of 
citizens asking to be heard, submitted 
to me a statement of complaint which 
he and those acting with him, desired 
to make at this meeting. I am quite 
sure that the text of that communication 
is well known to all persons, but it has 
been suggested that it be read, and the 
Secretary of the Board will read Mr. 
Senter’s communication. 


Feb. 19, 1913. . 
Hon. Walton Peteet, 


Chairman Board of Directors, Agricul- 
tural & Mechanical College, 
Fort Worth, Texas. 
Dear Sir: 

I have yours of the 18th inst., advising 
that a meeting of the Board of Directors 
of the A. & M. College will be held in 
Fort Worth on Monday, February 24, at 
10 a. m., to hear complaints relating to 
the recent dismissal of students for haz- 
ing and insubordination, and suggesting 
that it will facilitate the hearing if I will 
file with you a statement of the com- 
plaints to be submitted. 

In reply I beg to say that the resolu- 
tions adopted at the meeting held in 
Austin last Friday, a copy of which I 
herewith hand you, contain specifica- 
tions of charges, all of which will be sub- 
mitted to the Directors. 


_ In addition to the foregoing the follow- 


“ing charges will be submitted: 


1. That the trouble occurred as the re- 
sult of politics in the management. 


2. That the trouble could easily have 
been prevented; that it was caused by a 
denial to the students of the just and 
lawful right of petition, and that the re- 
sults were due to gross mismanagement 
on the part of the Faculty. 


3. That over forty students who signed 
the last proclamation delivered to the 


‘ Faculty by the students were never ex- 
that several of these are now 


pelled; 
attending College without having incurred 
punishment on account of their said 
action, thus evidencing that the publi- 
cation by the Faculty that the students 
were expelled for insubordination was 
not sincerely made or that the Faculty 
was guilty of gross discrimination. 

4. That the terms for reinstatement of 
students as adopted and published by the 
Faculty require the self-stultification of 


the student seeking to re-enter the Col- 
lege. | 

5. That students have been denied re- 
admittance to the College merely for the 
expression of sympathy with their fellow 
students and after compliance with all of 
the published terms of readmission. 

6. That certain students who have been 
placed under the ban, according to the 


published terms, and are not eligible to 


readmission, have received private assur- 
ances that they will be reinstated, while 
others who had less to do with the late 
occurrences have been rejected. 


7. That the Faculty employs a publicity 
agent at the expense of the State and that 
all publications and that all information 
which has gone out from College Station 
touching the controversy between the 
Faculty and the students was, in effect, 
censored by the Faculty through its own 
agents, and that through such methods 
the Faculty has succeeded in withhold- 
ing from the public material facts relat- 
ing to the controversy. 


8. That the relationship between the 
College and other agricultural colleges 
maintained by several States in the 
South is such that the students who 
have been excluded from the agricul- 
tural branch cannot obtain an agricul- 
tural course in the South, and that with 
a knowledge of this condition the Fac- 
ulty is seeking and causing the virtual 
outlawry from an agricultural, education 
of several students of high character 
and proven merit for reasons of a trivial 
nature which would not in a convict 
camp cause the slightest punishment of 
a convict. 


9. That there is a total want of har- 
mony between the Faculty and the stu- 
dents and that this has been occasioned 
in a large degree by the demeanor and 
attitude of the Faculty in wholly sep- 
arating itself from the student body, and 
in showing no sympathy whatever with 
the students. 


I beg to request that you will cause 
the Secretary of the Faculty to be pres- 
ent and to bring: with him copies of all 
proceedings taken and publications made 
by the Faculty with respect to the recent 
troubles. 


I also request that you shall procure 
the attendance of the Commandant, Lieu- 
tenant Brown, and that he shall bring 
with him all orders and _ publications 
made by his department in relation to 
the controversy and the notes and rec- 
ords made of the evidence taken upon 
the charges of hazing which resulted 
in the expulsion of twenty-seven stu- 
dents. 


I also request that you will procure 
and present to the Board all records that 
have been made touching the readmission 
since February 1, together with all or- 
ders and publications relating to the 
terms of admission, and copies of all 
questions that have been adopted for 


= 


Se 


quizzing students seeking readmission. 
Very truly yours, 
EH. G. SENTER. 


RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED AT AUSTIN 
CONFERENCE. 


“We, the former students of the Agri- 
cultural & Mechanical College, and 
friends and parents, in conference assem- 
bled, declare that a fair and full inves- 
tigation will show: 

1. “That the students made no attempt 
to defend or condone hazing; that they 
offered their services to the Faculty to 
put down hazing and that this offer met 
with no encouragement from the Fac- 
ulty; that that issue between the Fac- 
ulty and the students was not whether 
hazing should be overlooked, but the 
trouble arose over the attempt of the 
students to secure a fair trial and a 
square deal for twenty-seven of their 
associates. ; 


2. “That the Faculty went through the 
form of trial of four students, who were 
absent from the College at the time on 
furlough, and who had no notice that 
charges had been preferred against them 
and found these four students guilty of 
hazing, and assessed the penalty of ex- 


pulsion without notice to the students: 


or their parents that charges had been 
preferred against them, until the parents 
were served with notice of their expul- 
sion. 

3. “That the students who withdrew 
from the College on Saturday, February 
1, because they thought that the conduct 
of the Faculty showed that their twenty- 
seven associates could not get a fair 
trial at the hands of the Faculty, exer- 
cised a right guaranteed to them by the 
constitution and laws of the country, and 
that the conduct of the Faculty in there- 
after publishing to the world that these 
466 students had been expelled was a 
flagrant wrong, which the authorities of 
this State should be prompt to correct. 

4. “We further declare our belief that 
this action of the Faculty was taken, not 
to get rid of the students, who were 
already packing their trunks and getting 
ready to leave, but for the purpose of 
coercing them into remaining, and was 
an attempt upon the part of the Faculty 
to shield itself from investigation of its 
conduct by constraining the students 
into a forced return to College, in which 
course the Faculty still persists. 


5. “That investigation of the facts con- 
nected with the alleged hazing by the 
students who were expelled for hazing 
will show that the occurrence was of a 
trivial nature; that no injury was done; 
that the strapping was given and re- 
ceived in a spirit of good humor; that 
no complaint was made at the time and 
until long afterward, and that then the 
complaint was made by a boy who had 
left the school, and who before leaving 
told his associates that he did not in- 


tend to return because he could not take 
the course in College which he expected 
to take; that the boys who were present 
at the College and who were strapped, 
testified that they were not hurt; that 
the occurrence was merely a piece of 
boyish fun, such as was commonly in- 
dulged upon the campus, and that they, 
themselves, immediately thereafter, gave 
a similar strapping to one of the fresh- 
men, a member of the same company. 


6. “That we do not stand for hazing, 
nor for insubordination; that the trouble 
at the College was caused, not by the 
efforts of the Faculty to enforce dis- 
cipline, but because, for a long time 
there has been no serious discipline at 
the College; that the boys all recognized 
this, and were encouraged to believe that 
the Faculty did not consider such prac- 
tices as the twenty-seven boys were con- 
victed of as amounting to a serious of- 
fense, or aS being worthy of any inves- 
tigation whatever; that for this reason 
they regarded it as a gross injustice to 
their twenty-seven comrades to summa- 
rily expel them from College when it was 
well known by the entire Faculty and 
student body that almost, if not quite, 
all of the students had been guilty from 
time to time of similar offenses. 


7. “That we believe that the students ° 
are entitled to a hearing, and to full 
justice as well as the Faculty, and that 
justice cannot be done without a public 
investigation of all the facts before an 
impartial tribunal which will act solely 
in the public interest, and not merely 
for its own vindication. That we have 
today offered to refer the issue to the 
Governor of the State, as sole arbiter, 
and have pledged ourselves to abide, 
without question or complaint, any report 
or finding that he might make, and we 
deplore the circumstances which con- 
strain him to decline the task, because 
we have an abiding faith in his sense of 
justice and in his ability to ferret out 
the facts, if he should undertake to do so. 


8. “That we stand for the steady up- 
building of the College as one of the most 
important institutions of this State with- 
out regard to the immediate issue of this 
controversy and urge that parents and 
students shall not permit any spirit of 
resentment to arise in their minds be- 
cause of the temporary injustice to the 
students. We believe that time will soon 
show that the students who withdrew 
from the College were acting under hon- 
orable impulse, and that they were right 
in the declaration that gross injustice 
was done to the twenty-seven students 
who were expelled under the form of 
trial, but under circumstances’ which, 
when fully disclosed, cannot fail to meet 
the sternest condemnation of an unbiased 
public. | 

9. “That a committee shall be ap- 
pointed to present, on behalf of the 
students, a full statement of the facts, 
together with a tender of the evidence, 


to a meeting of the Board of Directors 
of the’ College, if one shall be called in 
accordance with the suggestion made in 
the letter written today by the Governor 
to the Chairman of the Board.” 


THE CHAIRMAN: The communica- 
tion from Mr. Senter was presented to 
the Board of Directors and I am directed 
by the Board to make the following an- 
nouncement: 

“The President of the Board of Direc- 
tors of the Agricultural and Mechanical 
College, having presented to the Board 
the complaints against the College, by 
Hon. EH, S. Senter, and the same having 
been considered with. respect to the 
strike of students and their dismissal, it 
is the conclusion and opinion of the 
Board that their hearing shall be upon 
and confined to the following matters, 
namely: 

“Ist. Whether the Faculty was justi- 
fied in dismissing the twenty-seven 
students for hazing. 

“2nd. Whether the action of the stu- 
dents in proclamation to the Faculty de- 
manding the reinstatement of cadets. dis- 
missed for hazing and refusing to attend 
classes until the granting of their de- 
mands and charging the Faculty with 
political and other offenses, was -an 
action justifying their dismissal. 

“3rd. Should the action of the Faculty 
in refusing to re-admit the students dis- 
missed for hazing be sustained? 

“Ath. Shall the Faculty’s terms of re- 
admission on the part of students in 
revolt be sustained? 

“It is the opinion of the Board that the 
above matters are fundamental questions 
involved in the controversy between the 
Faculty and students and all that ought 
to be considered at this time.” 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Senter, if you 
care, here is a copy of that (hands Mr. 
Senter a copy of the above). 

Mr. Senter here dictated the following 
communication to the Board of Direc- 
tors: 

“Fort Worth, Texas, Feb. 24, 1913. 

Hon. Walton Peteet, Chairman, 

-. and Members of the Board of Directors. 

Gentlemen: 

“In view of the fact that the announce- 
ment as to the matters to be considered 
at this meeting fixes limitations which 
would preclude an investigation of the 
merits of the controversy, which has 
arisen at the Agricultural and Mechani- 
cal College, and would exclude from the 
consideration of the Board some of the 
most material facts connected with the 
trouble, on behalf of all the students 
who are interested, I beg to request that 
this hearing shall extend to every ma- 
terial fact which concerns or touches 
either the conduct of the Faculty or the 
students. 

“In this connection, I beg to call your 
attention to the Chairman of the Board 
of Directors, which is hereto attached 


and made a part of this request, in which 
he invited a statement of the charges 
which would be submitted, and which led 
me and others to believe that the Board 
was ready to go into a thorough investi- 
gation of the whole matter, hence it 
comes to me and others as a surprise 
that limitation should now be fixed upon 
the hearing which would exclude practi- 
cally all of the most material facts. 

I further beg to call your attention to 
the fact that your announcement would 
preclude in terms a consideration by the 
Board of the hitherto unpublished facts, 
as far as the Faculty is concerned, that 
the students presented a respectful peti- 
tion to the Faculty, which it declined 
either to consider or to receive, and that 
it was this refusal of the Faculty to 
receive such petition, which was not only 
inoffensive in form, but couched in most 
respectful terms, that, in our contention, 
precipitated the trouble. 


“I further beg to call your attention 
to the fact that this petition embraced 
a plea that the Faculty would not penal- 
ize the students who were absent on 
indefinite furloughs, granted by the 
Faculty because of two sudden deaths 
from meningitis, of students at the Col- 
lege, on account of such students as left 
upon furlough and that the refusal of 
the Faculty to consider its action in thus 
penalizing the students for being absent 
upon leave, was a part of the grievance 
which led to the trouble. 


“It is respectfully submitted that if 
this hearing is to be of any benefit in 
the enlightenment of the Board of Direc- 
tors with respect to the causes of the 
trouble or in indicating the proper reme- 
dy, it ought to include every material 
fact; I, therefore, respectfully request 
that in adidtion to the matters proposed 
to be heard by the Board of Directors, 
as indicated by the written announce- 
ment, that the following additional mat- 
ters be heard by the Board: 


“(a) It is charged that after certain 
students were dismissed for hazing, that 
a large number of the student body pre- 
sented a certain petition to the Faculty, 
asking that said students so discharged 
be re-admitted, or, in the alternative, 
that similar action be taken as to them, 
declaring that all of them were equally 
guilty. 

“It is further charged that the Faculty 
entirely ignored this petition, and re- 
fused to receive same; it is, therefore, 
prayed that the action of the Faculty in 
this respect be investigated and acted 
upon, especially in view of the fact that 
the action of the students sending in 
the petition upon which they were dis- 
charged, was based upon the action of 
the Faculty in refusing to receive their 
petition and in ignoring them entirely., 

“(b) That each and every matter per- 
taining to the action of the Faculty, as 
well as that of the student body con- 
cerning the dismissal of the students in 


the first instance for hazing, the petition 
of certain members of the student body 
asking that said students be re-instated, 
the action of the Faculty in refusing to 
receive or consider said petition, and the 
action of the Faculty with reference to 
the manner in which an attempted dis- 
missal of those signing the petition was 
had, as well as whether or not any dis- 
crimination was shown by the Faculty 
with reference to any students in their 
action towards them, and that all matters 
and incidents pertaining to the action of 
the Faculty, as well as of the student 
body, from the beginning of the matters 
at issue, until the present time, be in- 
vestigated and determined. 

“(c) And we ask for further investiga- 
tion and hearing as to whether or not 
the Faculty or any member, has, in any 
way, undertaken to prevent any student 
who was dismissed from said school from 
obtaining admission to any other school 
or college. 4 
“Respectfully, 

“Hh. G. SENTER, Chairman.” 


MR. SENTER: Mr. Chairman: On be- 
half of those whom I represent in this 
matter, I have put in the form of a reply 
to this, a letter which I will ask Mr. 
McCaleb to read, with the request that 
he reduce jt to writing later; I do that 
simply to save time, 

THE CHAIRMAN: All right, the sten- 
ographer will read it. 

(The stenographer read the above com- 
munication from Mr. Senter.) 

MR. SENTER: Mr. Chairman: If it 
is the wish of the Board that I do so, 
I simply desire to suggest this: That 
in our minds the most material matters 
that concern the merits of the question, 
would be excluded by the terms fixed 
now by the Board; in other words, as I 
understand this, as I would interpret it, 
it simply singles out the last action of 
the students in what was called a pro- 
clamation or investigation, without going 
behind that to find out what may have 
led up to that, and would exclude the 
most material facts that produced what 
was called the proclamation. The fur- 
ther fact that these students—466 of 
them—were said to have been expelled 
and were published as expelled, were, 
according to our contention, as specified 
in the charges—they had already with- 
drawn from the College, and the Faculty 
had no jurisdiction over them at all; 
then their act in publishing that they 
had been expelled, would, of course, be 
a very grave injustice, and yet this would 
preclude an examination of that matter, 
and it would preclude an examination 
as to whether something like forty-five 
students who had signed this so-called 
proclamation, and who, if that be true, 
were guilty of a higher degree of in- 
subordination than any other of the stu- 
dents—whether any action had been 
taken upon their case, and whether the 
Faculty was guilty of the grossest kind 


of discrimination in metng out any pun- 
ishment at all, for they were guilty of 
the highest degree of admitted insubor- 
dination, it being the contention that 
they signed the petition after the Faculty 
had notified all the student body unless 
their names were taken off the petition, 
they would be expelled, and this, if true, 
would make that particular body of stu- 
dents guilty of a higher degree of insub- 
ordination than any of the other students. 
Our contention is, and our declaration 
of fact is, that those students were never 
expelled and no attempt was made to 
punish them, and that all this proves a 
total want of fairness and an unjust dis-. 
crimination as between students and 
students. In other words, Mr. Chairman, 
and gentlemen of the Board, our construc- 
tion of this instrument, as submitted, 
would be, that it would prevent an in- 
vestigation of the most material facts, 
and limit the investigation only to those 
matters concerning which the Faculty 
has chosen to give its side to the public, 
and we submit that every vital fact that 
concerns this matter ought to come be- 
fore the Board, whether it existed at the 
time or whether it has arisen since. 
THE CHAIRMAN: | § Replying to Mr. 
Senter, and jn defense of the propriety 
of the Board’s action, I desire to say, 
without having’ conferred with my asso- 
ciates, this much, in justification of the 
lines of inquiry they have laid down in 
the announcement read at the opening 
of this hearing: The Board feels that 
the material inquiry in this case is 
whether the action of the Faculty in dis- 
missing twenty-seven students for hazing, 
and their subsequent action in dismissing 
a large number of other students for sign- 
ing their names to a certain proclama- 
tion, constituted an act of insubordina- 
tion and justified their dismissal. The 
Board feels that the righteousness of 
the action of the Faculty in these two 
cases constitute the crux of this entire 
controversy, and it is their desire that 
this hearing be confined to the major 
factor as set out in this statement. Going 
a little further and discussing from mem- 
ory the answer of Mr. Senter, I have to 
say, that he is in error in his interpreta- 
tion of the limitation imposed by this 
program of procedure. This program con- 
templates the hearing of all complaints 
pertinent to the action of the Faculty in 
dismissing the students for hazing, be- 
cause it is expressly stated that the first 
question shall be: “Was the Faculty 
justified in dismissing twenty-seven stu- 
dents for hazing?” It seems to me and 
to my associates that that states the 
issues squarely and fairly with respect 
to the righteousness of the action of the 
Faculty in dismissing students charged 
with hazing, and that statement is, in 
our judgment, a complete answer to the 


special plea of Mr. Senter in his answer 
on that point. That question also em- 
braces. the righteousness and the proprie- 


ty of the Faculty in dismissing the stu- 
dents for insubordination. 


The second question which we have 
submitted at this hearing embraces the 
propriety and the righteousness of the 
action of the Faculty in dismissing all 
students who were dismissed for insubor- 
dination, which clearly includes the 
original 466, and those who subsequently 
requested that their names be added and 
included among those who subsequently 
requested that their names be added and 
included among those who signed. the 
proclamation, so it seems to me, this 
statement I have just made, disposes of 
that contention in the answer, and shows 
that it is without warrant and is special 
pleading. 

The third issue which we have em- 
bodied hearings upon, involves the right- 
eousness and propriety of the action of 
the Faculty in declining to re-admit the 
twenty-seven students dismissed for haz- 
ing. That issue thus invited, opens the 
field for any proper inquiry into the 
righteousness of the Faculty’s action in 
declining to receive the twenty-seven 
students who were dismissed for haz- 
ing, and it seems to me nothing further 
could be added in the way of an en- 
largement of the injuiry which would 
add any material fact to that phase of 
the hearing. Under the paragraph (c), 
as I recall it, the complaintants object, 
because in their view, the issue as 
invited, limits the inquiry in a manner 
which will exclude evidence of a dis- 
crimination—or alleged discrimination of 
the Faculty, in the re-admission of 
students. A careful reading of the fourth 
proposed issue, advanced by the Board, 
will dispose of that,: because we invite 
complaints relating to this issue—shall 
the Faculty’s terms of re-admission on 
the part of students in revolt, be sus- 
tained—and it follows necessarily that if 
it can be shown that the terms estab- 
lished by the Faculty for the re-admission 
of students in revolt is unfair, unjust or 
discriminatory in character, that it should 
not be sustained, and, therefore, the 
statement offered by the Board will 
invite and give an opportunity for the 
presentation of any evidence tending to 
-show that the terms established by the 
Faculty for the re-admission of the stu- 
dents is discriminatory, unjust or unfair, 
so, unless the Board desires to re-consider 
its tender as set forth in the statement 
read, I have to announce that the Board 
adheres to its action, and is now ready 
to hear complaints from Mr. Senter and 
those acting with him, or from any citizen 
of the State, with respect to the recent 
breaches of discipline at the College, as 
defined in this statement which has been 
read. 

MR. SENTER: May I say a word fur- 
ther? 

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. 


MR. SENTER: The statement of the 
Cha‘rman of the Board suggests that this 


would permit a discussion of the terms— 
the published terms, for re-admission 
made by the Faculty. That is true, but 
it does not permit a _ discussion of 
whether the Faculty is discriminating to 
make one set of terms with one student, 
and one set of terms for another, and it 
does not permit the investigation of the 
charge that one student, whom [ shall 
name, Mr. Burgess, was refused admis- 
sion, after he had complied with all terms, 
and simply because, after he had com- 
plied with all terms of admission, he ex- 
pressed simply his opinion of this con- 
troversy, upon the ground in a conver- 
sation. This statement, I say with all 
candor—I would not say it was So in- 
tended, but I do say in all candor, it ex- 
cludes every material fact bearing upon 
the merits of the controversy. We all 
know the terms of the last proclamation, 
because the Faculty published it. Those 
of us who have not made a special in- 
vestigation, do not know the terms of the 
first petition, because it was not printed 
that I have seen. I am not making any 
special plea, nor seeking to make any. 
We went to the Governor or this 
State, with the request that our com- 
plaint be heard; not a complaint about 
one matter, nor a complaint about 
another matter, but our complaint touch- 
ing this school and its administration 
with respect to these students, and the 
Governor referred us to the Board. I 
said I had gone to Mr, Peteet, which was 
a fact, and had first appealed to him, 
but got no hearing upon that, and then 
he said, “If you want to present your 
complaint to the Board, why, I will re: 
quest the Board to hear your complaint.” 
Now, gentlemen, it seems to me, that 
those who are interested in this College, 
and you, gentlemen, it seems to me would 
not be interested in merely finding out 
one fact or another fact, but I take it 
that the Board would be glad to know 
everything that has a material bearing 
upon this question, and that touches an 
attempt of the Faculty—and that touches 
the conduct of the Faculty, as well as 
the students, without regard to any plead- 
ing in the matter. We come here to pre- 
sent evidence you ought to know, not to 
present a lawsuit. Now the question is 
whether or not you will hear that, and 
you say, ‘We will hear this, and we won’t. 
hear that.” I say to you, in all frank- 
ness, that you say, “I will hear this, and 
I won’t hear that,’ does not meet with 
the suggestions that were made by the 
Governor, and it does not meet with the 
demands of the situation. It is a very 
material matter, and if every material 
matter is not heard, what can be the con- 
clusion with respect to it? I say to you, 
it strikes me in all fairness to you, I 
have no desire to pursue this matter 
further, if it can possibly be avoided, but 


this is obviously an investigation of: the 
conduct of the students and not the con- 
duct of the Faculty. Mr. Peteet has 


already declared in print that he was 
present on the ground and approved all 
that was done, and you are in the atti- 
tude here today with the President of 
your Board declaring everything that was 
done, he was conscious of it, and I say 
to you, I have never before heard of a 
situation in which one should—if he did 
approve of those things—is linked up 
with those charges made against the 
Faculty, and said they were his—yet he 
is the Chairman of your Board, and he 
has already prejudged the case—he has 
already declared that he has prejudged 
this case, and so every person and mem- 
bers of the Faculty is now in the atti- 
tude of saying, “I will decline, if the 
Governor has requested an investigation 
of the matter, I will decline to permit 
an investigation.” 4 

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Senter’s re- 
marks call for a personal statement from 
the President of the Board, and that 
statement is, as he has said, that I gave 
my approval to the action of the Facully 
in dismissing the students for hazing, 
and their subsequent action in dismissing 
the students who revolted against their 
authority, and their action in that case. 
I visited College Station on the day this 
action was taken, and in my judginent 
the Faculty acted properly in dismissing 


the students, a majority of whom had 


confessed the truth of the charge that 
they had violated the rules and hazed 
students; I gave my approval to their 
action in dismissing students, who had 
plead guilty and others, who, in the judg- 
ment of the Faculty, were proven guilty 
of hazing. I furthermore gave my ap- 
proval to the action of the Faculty in 
dismissing from the College some four 
hundred odd students, who went on 
strike against their action in dismissing 
those charged with hazing. In stating 
that, I am stating no new facts, because 
all who have been informed in this con- 
troversy know that. Notwithstanding 
that fact, and notwithstanding my an- 
nouncement of my position, I said to Mr. 
Senter, and I have said repeatedly to 
others, that as a member of the govern- 
ing Beard of this College, I am ready to 
hear complaints or reports touching the 
administration of that College, from any 
person, whether it be parent, student or 
citizen generally of the State, and I 
maintain that attitude today. I am readv 
and my mind is open to receive any com- 
plaint or any evidence touching the right- 
eousness and the propriety of the action 
of the Faculty to which I gave my ap- 
proval after having made such investiga- 
tion as was possible to be made, and com- 
ing on the ground. I wish to take occa- 
sion at this time to state that neither 
myself as President of the Board, nor 
the Board as an organization, has ever 
at any time, declined to receive or hear 
any complaint or report from any person 
touching this breach of discipline at the 
College. I have contended strongly 
against the legislative investigation be- 


cause I believed that the Board of Direc- 
tors, with their intimate knowledge of 
conditions at the College, and by reason 
of the special duty imposed upon them, 
by the office which they hold, were best 
qualified to deal with the situation aris- 
ing from. these breaches of discipline, and 
I have never hesitated to advise against 
a legislative investigation, and to urge 
upon the citizens who had complaints to 
make, to make them to the Board of 
Directors. I so urged upon Mr. Senter 
on the Monday following the conversa- 
tion by phone, and I so urged at a meet- 
ing of parents and students and citizens 
held in Dallas, on the Tuesday following 
that event, and I have continued so to 
urge since that time. I make this state- 
ment, gentlemen, in justification of my- 
self and of my associates on the Board. 
JUDGE GUION: Personally and indi- 
vidually, I would like to take off the 
hinges and throw the doors wide open, 
and hear any fact that might be intro- 
duced in evidence here to show a fault 
committed by the Board of Directors of 
the A. & M, College, in this connection 
with the dismissal of the twenty-seven 
students and the 466 students from A. 
& M. College, and so help me God, if I 
remain a memberof this Board, the insti- 
tution will be investigated from start 
to finish and the conduct of that College 
in its business relations, and in every 
other relation connected with the govern- 
ment of that institution, will be investi- 
gated by this Board and justice shall be 
done, not alone to the Faculty, but to 
the boys of Texas, who are attending 
that College; justice shall be done to the 
people of the State of Texas who are 
upholding that College and paying the 
taxes for the education of the boys of 
the State. I would like today to go into 
an investigation of all those things, but 
it seems to me, Senator Senter, that 
the paramount question here to be deter- 
mined in these troublesome times, when 
the minds of the people have been agi- 
tated, and when the Legislature is stirred 
over this question, is the great, funda- 
mental question: “Has there been haz- 
ing at A. & M. College?” “If, there has 
been hazing at A. & M. College, were the 
Faculty justified. in expelling the twenty- 
seven members of that College?” It seems 
to me, as a lawyer, that this would 
admit evidence of all facts tending to 
prove that there was no hazing in the 
first place, and in the second place, if 
there was hazing, were the Faculty justi- 
fied in dismissing the twenty-seven boys? 
Second: Was the petition which it 
is claimed was presented to the College 
Faculty and they declined, as is charged, 
to receive, or to act upon the petition, 
it would let in evidence as to whether 
or not their action was right, proper 
and just, and necessary for the control 
ot the cadets attending the College? 
Then next comes: Were the Faculty 
justified in expelling the 466 students 
for insubordination? That would let in 


evidence of every fact tending to prove 
that they were justified or were wrong 
in their action, and necessarily, that 
would involve the question of the re- 
fusal, if there was a refusal upon the 
part of the Faculty, to hear the first 
petition which was presented to them, 
justified the boys of that College in 
their insubordination, and it would let 
in evidence just such as you wish to 
introduce. Then the next question would 
come up: “Has there been proper rules 
and regulations and right and just regu- 
lations made by the Faculty of that Col- 
lege, for the re-admission of those stu- 
dents who have been expelled? That 
would let in evidence as to the justice 
and fairness and righteousness of those 
rules and regulations, and when that is 
done, it seems to me, that at this time, 
in the. excited state of feeling of the 
people, that that is all which should 
be gone into and which should be deter- 
mined, and Senator, and friends of the 
cadets of the A. & M. College, you must 
realize and you must recognize that every 
member of this Board has a heart within 
his breast that is beating in sympathy 
with the mothers and fathers of the 
cadets and is in sympathy for the boys 
who are attending the College, and we 
have not come here as friends of the 
Faculty, but- we have come here as the 
friends, the true friends and the best 
friends, of the boys of the A. & M. 
College, and we intend to see that justice 
is done to them and to the College, 
although the heavens fall. That is the 
idea and the spirit in which we came 
here. We do not want at this time to 
investigate those outside matters but we 
want to investigate the great funda- 
mental questions at this time, and deter- 
mine and adopt some means fair to the 
Faculty and some means fair to the 
boys, by which all those boys—the 
honest, honorable boys will come for- 
ward and make amend for the wrongs 
which they have done, for they have done 
wrong, and be admitted to that institu- 
tion—I mean be re-admitted to that insti- 
tution, and we are here for the purpose 
of hearing evidence along that line, and 
we want to hear it, and we are anxious 
to hear it, and I believe that our Honora- 
ble Chairman of this Board, without any 
suggestion on the part of the Governor, 
upon the solicitation of any respectable 
number of citizens, would have called 
this Board together for the purpose of 
giving a respectful hearing to those de- 
siring it. We only want right for the 
boys, and rights for the Faculty. It 
has not been suggested what will be the 
result of this investigation; it has not 
been suggested to this Board—we should 
be open. Any facts that show that there 
has been some lax administration there 
—it has not been suggested to this Board 
what should be their action jin the event 
any of the charges which have been 
made are true. [ do not know what will 
be the result. It may that the Senator 


may demand that the Board of Directors 
all was there; it may be that the Sena- 
tor may demand that the Board of Di- 
rectors of the College be removed; it may 
be that the Senator may claim then 
that the students should meet en masse, 
and that they should elect a board of Direc- 
tors, and that they should elect a Faculty 
to govern and control them. I trust not, 
I hope that is not the idea. [I hope 
the idea of Senator Senter and the 
friends of the boys, is to uphold the 
A. & M. College, to uphold the boys in 
their rights, and to uphold the Board 
of Directors in doing their duty and to 
uphold the Faculty of that College in 
everything which they have done which 
is right, and condemn them for that 
which they have done if wrong. In adopt- 
ing these four question to be submitted 
to you, we have done it for the good of 
the College; we have done it for the 
good of the boys; we have done it for 
the good of the Faculty; we have done 
it for the good of the Board as con- 
scientious men and in the interest and 
in behalf of the people of the State, and 
I believe after that, when you have had 
your investigation and when you have 
introduced your evidence, that you all 
will be satisfied that you have been given 
a fair and an open and sufficient investi- 
gation. 

MR. SENTER: Will you permit just 
an additional statement? JI am moved 
by the suggestion of Judge Guion, and I 
think that some misconception on his 
part and perhaps on the part of others 
as to what we are here for, I think there 
is that, and how we happen to come 
here. Mr. Peteet:has made his personal 
statement, and that calls for one from 
me, personal to myself. I never thought 
of going beyond the Board of Directors, 
and I have never questioned their desire 
to do what seems right in this matter, 
but gentlemen, when this matter first 
arose, I was called into it, and I simply 
appealed to Mr. Peteet to come over and 
see if we could not arrange upon terms 
of honorable re-instatement of the boys, 
and let me say to you gentlemen, who 
are members of the Board, and to your 
chairman, Mr. Peteet, that those of us 
who are representing this comimttee, had 
no desire to make any such suggestion 
whatever, or any recommendation what- 
ever as to how that school shall be run. 
We are not here for that purpose. We 
are not seeking to remove any professor. 

In defense of our own course, when we 
were denied a hearing, we made com- 
plaints which necessarily involved a crit- 
icism of the course of the Faculty, but 
let me say to you, our only purpose, and 
the purpose of the organization with 
which I was connected, was simply the 
honorable reinstatement of the boys, leav- 
ing the Board and the Faculty, neither 
one of whose authority we questioned, to 
guard and guide the future of that Col- 
lege. We recognize, as well as you, the 
necessity of absolute and perfect dis- 


cipline in that school. There is not a 
parent here or one of the 466 cadets, 
nor of the others who were expelled on 
the charge of hazing, who desires to 
impair the discipline of the school or 
the control of the Faculty or Board over 
the school. I know I speak their sen- 
timents, because I am familiar with that 
subject. When it appeared from an ap- 
peal to Mr. Peteet that no change could 
be made in those terms, for reinstatement 
which required the stultification of every 
student who presented himself for rein- 
statement—when that was apparent— 
speaking for myself, I addressed on the 
4th of February to Mr. Peteet and sent 
a copy of this letter to the President 
of the school, statmeg that as to my son— 
he had been published as dismissed when 
he had withdrawn properly from that 
school and was not within the jurisdic- 
tion of the authorities of the school— 
I received on the 6th day of February 
from Mr. Peteet a letter which was an 
acknowledgment of my letter, and a state- 
ment that it would be submitted to the 
Board. I had stated to Mr. Milner, in my 
letter, and my letter to Mr. Peteet, which 
he has, will bear that out—I, of course, 
expected an opportunity to appear before 
the Board and present proof upon that 
one subject, that he had withdrawn from 
the College, and they had no authority 
to expel him, which was a fact beyond 
any question in the world. This was 
dated on the 6th of February, and I say 
to you, gentlemen, that I ought to have 
been permitted to appear before you, 
acting on such a question as that, cer- 
tainly if the authorities there have pub- 
lished my son has been expelled from 
school when he was not expelled; that 
that statement is not true and I am pre- 
pared to show it. Are you willing to 
hear that? Within two or three days 
after my letter, which I believe called 
for an opportunity for me to appear be- 
fore the Board, I received notice from 
Mr. Peteet that you had met and acted 
on that resolution and denied and re- 
fused it. Is the Board willing to stand 
for; that? I say that (Mr. Peteet’is* not 
a proper party to sit in judgment on 
this case. If there is any other member 
of the Board who sat there and under- 
took to pass upon that question without 
giving me even notice or opportunity to 
be there, I say that you are not proper 
to sit upon this case. Is that fair? I 
do not believe now that was properly 
heard and passed upon. Surely I can- 
not believe the Board would sit and un- 
dertake to pass upon a question like 
that, without even giving me an oppor- 
tunity, when [I had asked it, to come be- 
fore them—come before your Board— 
and consequently when I tried to appear 
before your Board and sought a hearing, 
from what I personally know—and I 
was denied that. I have never said a 


word in criticism of this Board and I 
demand as a citizen of this State—inof- 


fensively, you understand—but I say, 
when you published through the State 
of Texas ‘that my boy was expelled 
from the school under the control of that 
Faculty, and if that be untrue, are you 
willing to deny me a hearing upon that? 
I have letters there that byos have been 
seeking admission all over the South and 
cannot get it, because they were pub- 
lished as expelled. Are you willing to 
sit there and say that those boys shall 
be denied an education? I have here a 
letter from the University of Missouri, 
and the University of Arkansas, and 
one other university, that boys, not seek- 
ing to raise any controversy, but simply 
desiring an education—boys who bore | 
the certificate of the President that they 
are honorable boys, and are guilty of no 
real misconduct—yet, through some in- 
fluence that we want to find out, those 
boys who have gone out of this State 
to get an education, are absolutely de- 
nied that right and are absolutely brand- 
ed as outlaws today. If they had with- 
drawn from that College and notified it 
formally that they had withdrawn from 
the College and had, in fact, severed 
their connection with it, will the Board 
of Directors protect the Faculty? Our 
contention is that it was published for 
the purpose of coercing those boys. We 
do not hide behind any mysterious lan- 
guage. We say the Faculty, knowing 
they had withdrawn, published said state- 
ment for the purpose of coercing the 
boys. Will you say you will permit 466 
boys or more than that, to be branded 
as expelled from College and refused 
admission to every other college, because 
you say this is not germane to the sub- 
ject? I may not want to send my boy 
back there. I am not proposing a dis- 
cussion of that—there may be hundreds 
who do not desire readmission. We put 
it up to the Board fairly and I appeal 
to this Board, through its chairman, for 
permission to appear before it, and pre- 
sent that fact, and the next notice I 
had of it was that the Board had acted. 
I sent a copy of that to Mr. Milner, and 
I told him I intended to appear before 
the Board, and within two or three days 
I got notice that they had acted on my 
application without hearing from me or 
giving me any opportunity to appear 
before it. I do not believe the Board of 
Directors—I say to you, one and all, I 
do not believe you approve of that, and 
I am here to make complaint of that 
transaction and that proceeding. That 
is a personal matter. 


As I said to the Governor; we have 
no desire to embarrass the authorities 


with respect to this school. We recog- 
nize the embarrassing situation that ex- 
ists, and we have no desire to embarrass 
the Board in the duty that lies before it 
now. We say this, and I have used _ all 
the ingenuity that I could command to 
try to persuade those in authority to 
reach some honorable terms of rein- 


statement, and leave to those in charge 
of the school the whole question of its 
management, and to do whatever they 
please about it. I have no desire, and 
you mistake my purpose if you think I 
am trying to institute any punishment 
against that school or its authorities; my 
desire is to co-operate with this Board 
and with others, to seek to build it up, 
and with the Faculty. I say this: There 
was a condition of feeling there between 
the Faculty and the students that made 
it impossible for those two bodies to 
reach an agreement. I say to you now, 
as I have said to others in authority, if 
this Board can now devise terms of hon- 
orable reinstatement to those who choose 
to apply, as far as I am concerned I 
will leave it to the Board itself to make 
such investigation as it may choose— 
to relegate the whole matter to the 
Board, if it will take the matter in hand. 
I say to the Board now, and it seems to 
me this is the most reasonable, in view 
of the circumstances which have been 
suggested, if the Board can provide now, 
and will provide now, means for the hon- 
orable reinstatement of those boys—not 
with the idea that they have won a vic- 
tory over the Faculty, that is not our 
purpose—if you think we are engaged 
in an effort to help the boys win over the 
Faculty, you are mistaken—we do not 
believe that would be a wise thing to 
do. The same thing that you have in 
your minds I undertake to say is the 
same thing we have in our minds. And if 
that be true, why cannot we get together. 
I put it up to Mr. Peteet and I put it 
up to the rest of you now. Not that we 
haggle and quarrel. I say that the men 
representing the fathers of those boys 
are willing to try to reach an adjustment 
that would avoid the friction that nec- 
essarily will come by proceeding with 
the question of who was right and who 
was wrong. So I say to you now: If 
you are willing to consider the question, 
I bélieve that you will find the fathers 
here and the boys themselves reasonable 
on that, and I believe you could avoid 
any investigation at this time. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to say this 
in justice to myself and in justice to my 
relations with the other members of the 
Board. On the issue tendered by Mr. 
Senter that he requested a hearing by 
this Board and was denied, and in justi- 
fication of that statement, I wish only 
to submit the fact that before Mr. Senter 
communicated with me by phone or let- 
ter, he went over the heads of the Board 
and appealed to the Legislature, and 
asked for an official investigation by that 
body. I leave the balance for your con- 
clusion.. : 

MR. SENTER: Pardon me; that tele- 
gram was sent only after I had had my 
interview with you. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Your telegram to 
the Legislature was on Monday, and your 
talk with me, Senatof, was between 4:05 
and 4:55 o’clock, because after hanging 


11 


up the receiver, after talking with you, 
I turned and picked up the paper and 
read your communication to the Legis- 
lature. 

MR. SENTER: 
with you now. 


THE CHAIRMAN: You will find that 
is a fact if you will look up those dates. 
I think a statement to the Board is nec- 
essary in order to place me in the proper 
light with my associates on the Board. 
Now I feel that I am warranted, without 
consulting my associates, in saying that 
we now accept your proposal; that the 
Board will meet and carefully consider 
the proper action to be taken by them 
with respect to the reinstatement of the 
dismissed students, and I can say with- 
out consulting them now, that their heart 
is as tender on. this subject as yours, 
or as that of any one associated with 
you. They realize that it is a tragedy 
ina boy’s life to be taken from college— 
to be dismissed from college—they un- 
derstand fully what that means, to go 
out from college at a time when they 
should be there getting an education. 
The Board is now ready and willing and 
anxious to confer with you and with any 
parent and with any citizen with respect 
to the wisdom and the terms of rein- 
statement of any dismissed student from 
that college, and we accept your pro- 
posal on that point. 


MR. SENTER: If you gentlemen will 
indicate if you desire to consult or how 
you desire to consider the matter, we are 
at your service in the matter. 


MR. BENNETT: I would like for you 
to illustrate on the point that the stu- 
dents who had withdrawn, that they 
were not under the jurisdiction of the 
college—emphasize that a little bit. 

MR. SENTER: When the first peti- 
tion, which was, as I recollect it—and I 
understand there is no dispute as to the 
terms of that. I do not desire being in 
the attitude of misstating it, and I think 
Mr. Peteet may have a copy of it. As 
I understand the petition, the first peti- 
tion was simply—just stating the sub- 
stance of it—that, whereas, certain stu- 
dents have been expelled for hazing, and, 
whereas, we who sign this are equally 
guilty with those who have been expelled, 
we request of the College their reinstate- 
ment, and that all be treated alike—I 
am trying to give what I understand to 
be the substance of the petition. I un- 
derstand there is very little dispute 
about it, or would be none with respect 
to the most material facts of it. That 
petition was presented by itself from the 
junior class and sophomore class. When 
that was reported back it was pretty 
well understood that the Faculty’s re- 
fusal to entertain the petition meant that 
the Faculty would not recede from its 
position. The boys all knew that, and 
the next petition was really gotten up, 
as boys, and perhaps men under some 
circumstances do, rather to express their 
feelings and, of course, it was worded 


I will not discuss that 


in rather indiscreet and improper lan- 
guage. 

JUDGE GUION: 
that. 

MR.:SENTER: I declare that and de- 
plore that fact. The whole situation, ] 
think, grew out of a want of under- 
standing possibly on both sides. I want 
to say personally that I believe I stand 
for perhaps a little more discipline than 
most any one, because my mother was 
a school teacher for twenty odd years, 
and I am the last man to protest against 
discipline. They sent this last proclama- 
tion back and the boys promptly decided 
to go home. My understanding is that 
Lieutenant Brown was advised of that. 
The boys packed their grips and notified 
the Commandant that they were going 
home, took a formal vote to leave the Col- 
lege and go home, and the next morning, 
it seems, some of them were under the 
impression, it being a military school, as 
long as they were on the campus, under 
the control of Uncle Sam, probably they 
would be violating the law if they did not 
report for military duty. 

JUDGE GUION: Don’t you understand 
that there are certain rules and regula- 
tions prescribed as to the manner in 
which a cadet can resign. When they 


I am glad you admit 


resign they must follow a certain course; . 


there is a blank form for a cadet to sign, 
stating the reason for his resigning, and 
that resignation must be handed to the 
Commandant and the Commandant then 
makes his endorsement upon that resig- 
nation, and then his resignation is acted 
upon or accepted or rejected, and don’t 
you know there is a further military law, 
not only in West Point, but in every 
military school in the land, that when 
a student leaves college without doing 
that he is guilty of desertion, and that 
he should then be expelled and his name 
stricken from the roll of the college? 
MR. SENTER: I am glad you sug- 
gested that. That is the plea upon which 
the Faculty’s action was based. The boys 
notified the Commandant and voted to 
go home. The next morning, as I under- 
stand it, they got out and marched in 
regular order and stacked their guns and 
turned them over to the proper authori- 
ty, Commandant Brown; I understand 
that was a perfectly orderly proceeding 
and Judge Williams, in describing it 
before the committee, said it was the 
most touching incident he ever saw, for 
many of them were weeping and felt 
like it was their last march. They had 
decided to go home and voted to go 
home and notified the proper authority 
and were packing their trunks to go 
home. The Faculty published the action 
—their publication was to the effect 
-that every boy who did not take his 
name off by six. o’clock on Sunday 
would be expelled. With respect to the 
question by Judge Guion, there is no 
regulation in what is called their Blue 
Book with respect to how a resignation 
may be tendered. I have the Blue Book 


in my possession and as a matter of 
fact, so far as their regulations are 
concerned, laid down probably by the 
Board, there is no particular form of 
resignation provided. So far as the Blue 
Book, which is supposed to be their 
gospel, there is no provision there about 
the form provided—any particular form 
of resignation shall be required. If there 
had been it would be absolutely without 
any force and effect so far as a boy 
is concerned should he decide to quit 
school. J undertake to say that when a 
boy of any age, especially one over four- 
teen years old, who is entitled to choose 
his own guardian, whenever he decides . 
to leave the school they cannot hold 
him there. Every lawyer here will agree 
that there is no power in that school 
to hold a boy if he decides to go away. 
Between his parents and himself there 
might arise a question, if his parents 
attempted to keep him there and could 
not do it. He has a right to leave that 
school and has a right to choose his 
own legal right of resignation. Please 
let this fact go down as it ought to. 
I am not trying to stand upon any tech- 
nical question, but I have investigated 
that deeper than perhaps anyone else 
outside those connected with the Faculty 
itself and I say to you that I never 
in my life knew an incident that stirred 
more sympathies. That was for this 
reason: every boy acting there was act- 
ing under the principle that he was will- 
ing to sacrifice himself to protect an- 
other from what he thought was wrong. 
I am proud of Texas, and that is why 
I say if the boys were wrong, are you 
going to punish boys for a thing like 
that, boys who are willing to surrender 
the possibility of an education, some of 
them lost the last chance at an educa- 
tion. It is the most pathetic incident I 
ever dipped into in my life. Women and 
men have written me, pleading with me 
to try and help their boys, and when I 
consider those boys who were acting 
orderly—they had a right to quit, they 
considered a very grave wrong had been 
done their comrades—and I say to you, 
if you will investigate that as I did, and 
I had everyone of those boys before 
me, and I wish you could have them 
before you; everyone of those boys who 
had been hazed, everyone of them told 
me it was an absolute trivial occurrence. 
I tried to get them here. [ gave Mr. 
Peteet the names of three of them and 
he said he did not feel like he was 
authorized to bring them here without 
the consent of their parents. I do not 
know whether he has talked with them 
or not, 


THE CHAIRMAN: 
MR. SENTER: 


I have not. 
I want to say that 


‘ most of the advice that I give here I 


got from Lieutenent Brown; his state- 
ments to me about this occurrence were 
as fair as possible for a man to make, 
and if I have made any criticism of him 
I have based it upon his own statements. 


‘I do not think he was trying to do 
wrong— 

THE CHAIRMAN: My suggestion to 
you is that the discussion that you are 
now making refers to the controversy. 
The point I am getting at is this: If we 
are to proceed along the lines you indi- 
cate I make this suggestion in order to 
expedite reaching an agreement. You 
Submit to the Board the terms upon which 
you think the boys should be readmitted, 
that is, state your proposal. The other 
matters we will pass for the present, 
if you will address yourself to the terms 
upon which the students may be read- 
mitted. 

MR. SENTER: I really believe I can 
see daylight with this. I .say to you, 
and I say to the people of this State 
who are interested, that I don’t think 
the boys ought to make the terms. 


MR. BENNETT: It must be recog- 
nized that there is a certain dignity in 
the A. & M. College, irrespective of 
the Faculty and Board, and that dignity 
and standing in the State has to be con- 
sidered in adjusting the terms, as well 
as the students’ side; we must take into 


account the dignity and responsibility of ° 


the A. & M. College as a State institu- 
tion and we must realize that when we 
approach the subject of the terms. ‘ 

MR. SENTER: MI appreciate that and 
appreciate the source of the suggestion; 
it is right and true. There is no doubt 
every declaration of principle you have 
made here and every declaration of prin- 
ciple your Chairman has made, much as 
I have disagreed with him on details, it 
must always be recognized that the Fac- 
ulty is to control. That must be recog- 
nized and no boy should go back there 
but who is willing to subscribe to that. 
There is no contention between us on 
that. I will go as far as any one could 
possibly demand on that. Now, limiting 
it to the suggestion made by your Chair- 
man, I make this suggestion: put it as 
you please, as an act of grace upon your 
part, the Board here represents the high- 
est power, and I assume the Board does 
not object to being put in the attitude 
that it is well to do as much as possible, 
as is consistent with its public duty, 
to prevent any injury to any boy in this 
State. There is nothing the State sur- 
renders in dignity in that. Upon that 
proposition I make this suggestion, and 
J think the Faculty, and 1 hope they will 
be willing to it, that they are willing 
to go as far as the Board would on that 
proposition, recognizing always the right 
of the Faculty to control that school 
without any unfairness on the subject 
of discipline— 

JUDGE GUION: Do you hold. that 
every time a boy is expelled from that 
school, two or three, or half a dozen, 
or any number, expelled from the school, 
that it is right and proper and just, and 
the right of the boys to pass upon the 
justice or injustice of the expulsion of 
those pupils and present their ideas and 


13 


their views by petition or otherwise to 
the Faculty upon that question? 

MR, SENTER: We unhesitatingly say 
that is a mistake and I do not hold any 
such thing. 

JUDGE GUION: It seems to me you 
are contending now that the Faculty, 
when they expelled these boys for haz- 
ing, that the Faculty committed a great 
wrong against the boys when they re- 
fused to consider what you term a peti- 
tion to them asking that they rescind 
their action in expelling the twenty-two 
boys, because they were as guilty as the 
twenty-two. Are you contending that 
whenever boys are expelled from the 
school by the Faculty it is right and 
proper and conducive to good government 
and discipline and the control of that 
College for the sophomore class and 
freshman class, or any other class, to 
find fault with the Faculty for their action 
and present a petition to them asking 
them to rescind their action? 

MR. SHNTER: No, I do not; I do 
not -contend that. You are calling upon 
me to transgress from the wise sugges- 
tion made by the Chairman. I said this: 
there might occur, if it were a fact 
the boys had been expelled in large 
numbers and who were not guilty of 
anything that justified their expulsion 
when the entire College Board presented 
that petition there, the same right of peti- 
tion that exists everywhere in the world, 
except in very few localities, called upon 
the Faculty to give—especially when it 
was respectfully presented, it demanded 
consideration. 

THE CHAIRMAN: The Faculty made 
an answer to the proclamation. 

MR. SENTER: Those are details I am 
trying to get away from. There is a 
law question presented which involves a 
question of whether a boy had a right 
to quit and when he did quit and notified 
the Board about quitting, I say that 
cut out his connection with the College 
and they had no authority. The Faculty 
recognized that with respect to the boys 
who handed in their names after the 
Faculty notified them that anyone who 
did not take his name off they would be 
expelled, and forty or fifty of them signed 
an extra sheet and asked that it be 
tacked on. Those boys were nexer ex- 
pelled. 

THE CHAIRMAN: You are in error 
there, but I am willing to pass it all 
over— 

MR. SENTER: My understanding is 
that they were marked deserters. That 
testimony was given before the Senate 
Committee. Going back to the Blue Book, 
it will show no form or method of resig- 
nation required. If a boy packed -his 
trunk and called the Commandant over 
the phone and told him he was going 
home, that put him out. 

THE CHAIRMAN: The book does 
show he must have the consent of his 
parent or guardian. 

MR. SENTER: I don’t think it shows 


that; I think it shows to go off on trips 
and things like that. However that may 
be, it may be a question between him 
and his guardian, but not between him 
and the College. 

JUDGE GUION: If he is a deserter 
and marked a deserter, can he enter any 
other agricultural school? 

MR. SENTER: If he quit the school? 

JUDGE GUION: You say after he is 
expelled he is shut out from any other 
agricultural college. Now, if he is marked 
as a deserter, will he be admitted to 
any other college? 

MR. SENTER: I will read you a let- 
ter, the letter from the University of 
Missouri to a brother of one of the boys 
(Senator Senter here read letter from 
the University of Missouri regarding the 
admission of students expelled from A. 
& M. College, but said letter was mis- 
placed and therefore does not appear in 
this record). 

THE CHAIRMAN: I state this, not 
for the purpose of prolonging the con- 
troversy, but that the records may state 
the facts. That letter of course indicates 
on its face that it is a voluntary action on 
the part of the University of Missouri 
and not in response to any objection 
or suggestion from the A. & M. College. 
I want to state furthermore in this con- 


nection, and I want this to go into the 


record, that when the Dean of a College, 
the T. C. University, got me on the 
phone and told me some dismissed stu- 
dents from the A.. & M. College had ap- 
plied for admission there and wanted to 
know what our position on the matter 
was and I told him, without conferring 
with the Faculty at all, my wish would 
be and my request would be that they 
should take them in. It was not the pur- 
pose of the Board of the A. & M. College 
to pursue any boy beyond its campus 
and deny him an opportunity for educa- 
tion, and I urged him to take them, 
without knowing who they were. I say 
this: they had made a mistake at the 
A. & M. College, but if they would admit 
them they would make good students. 
I stated to many parents who called on 
me— 

MR. SENTER: JI make this suggestion 
about that: these students have applied 
to different colleges and they have been 
rejected on account of the action of the 
A. & M. College. 

THE CHAIRMAN: That statement 
would be all right if it were considered 
separate from the other charge that the 
action of the foreign colleges is made at 
the request of the A. & M. College; [I 
just wanted to challenge that statement. 

MR. SENTER: I want to say that 
the fact that these boys are absolutely 
outlaws as a result of that standing 
alone, must appeal to you members of 
this Board. 

JUDGE GUION: They do this by their 
own act when they leave the College 
wheher they have been expelled or not. It 
says a boy seeking admission in another 


14 


college must bring a certificate from the 
college which he has been attending 
showing honorable dismissal. I will ask 
you the question, if the boy leaves the 
College of his own free will and is marked 
a deserter, because he leaves without the 
consent of the College authorities, does 
he not, then by that act, outlaw himself? 
Is that not a fact? 

MR. SENTER: They would have no 
authority if the College authority—for 
instance a boy might not be able to see 
the Commandant— 

JUDGE GUION: 
excuse. 

MR. SENTER: 
never goes back. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Was not the letter 
from the Missouri University written on 
a statement of facts as made by the 
parent and not on a statement of facts 
made by any one from the College? Did 
not the parent state the facts upon which 
the university declined to accept them? 

MR. SENTER: Let me make this sug- 
gestion so as to show you these facts. 
Oklahoma, Arkansas and Mississippi, I 
believe, are the only States in the South 


That would be an 


He goes away and 


‘that have agricultural colleges of any 


rank outside of Texas. Now, every one 
of those have declined to receive these 
students in the agricultural courses, and 
those who applied there applied for the 
agricultural department. 

MR. BENNETT: Let us indulge in a 
little humor here: maybe those schools 
were afraid they might introduce an in- . 
surrection up there. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I want to state for 
the record that the A. & M. College is 
not a party to any agreement to exclude 
students from any college. 

MR. SENTER: I am not discussing 
that phase of it; I am simply indicating 
in reply to the questions of the Board, 
the gravity of the situation. I am sure 
those statements irrespective of any 
question involving the merits of the case, 
appeal to the best instincts of men. Let 
me make this suggestion: I do not want 
to be in the attitude of attempting to 
suggest the terms upon which these boys 
should be reinstated. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 
you should do so? 

MR. SENTER: If you invite me to 
suggest, but I say the terms should come 
from you, because when I say We recog- 
nized the Board ought to act uninflu- 
enced by any consideration except that 
of right, I think it would be a very satis- 
factory solution of this if it should result 
in a harmonious settlement of these mat- 
ters coming from the Board, united by 
the Faculty and agreed in by the students 
and coming so that the students will 
recognize that they must go back there, 
if they go at all, subordinate to the 
Faculty; no question of discipline or no 
suggestion that they are the masters of 
the situation. God knows I don’t want 
any one of them feeling like that. I 
might say something personal about it, 


Don’t you think 


but I will not, for I am acting wholly 
impersonal, Let me make this sugges- 
tion: the twenty-seven boys that went 
out there were expelled for hazing. Now, 
just take the Faculty’s action about it. 
The other boys were expelled for insub- 
ordination. I will put every member of 
the Faculty here and the Commandant, 
Mr. Brown, and I will undertake to show 
that hazing is a less offense than insub- 
ordination, and I will put every member 
of the Faculty on, as I said, and undertake 
to show that a boy who refuses to be 
governed by the Faculty has been guilty 
of a higher crime than strapping a boy. 
I say that the terms that embrace the 
higher offense ought to also embrace the 
lower offense, not with a view that the 
boy shall be said to have won a victory, 
not that. 

MR. KONE: 
around that? 

MR. SENTER: Upon the proposition 
that right is right at. all times and at 
all places, and that this Board offered 
to do what was right without regard to 
criticism or comment of any one on earth. 
Right is right and truth is truth, and 
no one ought to be afraid to do anything 
that is right, They say my boy was 
guilty of insubordination. Let it go at 
that. My boy was not expelled for 
‘hazing. The 466 were expelled on the 
charge that they were sticking by the 
other boys and were guilty of insubordi- 
nation. My boy was guilty of a higher 
offense than the boy that was guilty of 
hazing, or rather expelled for hazing, 
and I say that to you frankly. Don’t you 
recognize that I am right? Is my boy 
entitled to any more consideration than 
the other fellow? Is that right? He is 
simply guilty at the most of what is in 
its general sense not a serious offense, 
because he has not challenged the au- 
thority of the Faculty, yet you say, and 
your whole attitude here today is predi- 
cated upon the fact of a charge which 
is a challenge of the authority of the 
Faculty, and this you are trying and 
seeking to avoid. Now, my suggestion 
is to put the boys back where they 
were and give them a chance to finish 
up their examinations, so the school 
work may go on as if there had been 
no interference; that is, where a boy is 
willing to bend and buckle down to work, 
why give them a chance to go and make 
up for the time lost, and provide exami- 
nations”so they can make up that time— 
possibly extend the term a little longer. 

THE CHAIRMAN: I would like for 
you to tell us in a frank way what you 
believe would be the result upon discip- 
line at the College if this Board rein- 
stated the twenty-seven men about -whom 
the strike occurred. What in your judg- 
ment would be the effect upon discip- 
line, and what would be the conclusion 
reached by the young men attending the 
College now and in the future? 

MR. SENTER: I believe, gentlemen, 
without going into the merits of the ques- 


How would you get 


‘ing to prevent. 


tion, I believe if you will put those boys 
upon their pledges, put it up to them as 
men of honor, and they are men of honor, 
and provide a way whereby they shall 
assist you in putting down hazing. I 
want to see that put out. I am not 
standing for that, and J think those who 
attempt to explain it as necessary are 
mistaken. You ought to put more amuse- 
ments over there for those boys, and see 
that they have something amuse them- 
selves with; give them a gymnasium, 
Good healthy boys have to have some- 
thing to do; give them more amusement. 
JUDGE GUION: Go to the Legislature 
and help us get an appropriation to do 
that very thing. ie 
MR, SENTHER: I never missed an op- 
portunity when I was there to stand for 
more money than any one else did. I 
want to get more money for it. That is 
why I am standing here today. I am 
trying to prevent the things you are try- 
I say to you, and J think 
the Faculty will verify this, I say that 
the Faculty and the student body ought 
to get closer together. It don’t make 
any difference who is wrong and who ~— 
is right. We have had enough quarrel- 


ing, and let us see if we can get together. 


You put it up to those boys as men of 
honor and make them pledge themselves, 
and make them acknowledge their mis- 
take in this very matter; they have no 
right to challenge the authority of the 
Faculty, and then let them sign a pledge 
that they will join in putting down haz- 
ing, and whenever a man goes back on 
that pledge, put him out of there, and I 
think you will find the great body of the 
boys in that institution will get behind 


the Faculty, and the Faculty won’t have 


much trouble about that. I say to you, 
in all frankness, that I believe under 
these conditions you have the finest op- 
portunity you have had; those boys want- 
ed those twenty-seven boys back, they 
wanted the band of outlaw taken off of 
them. You talk about discipline and I 
put it up to you, Mr. Chairman. You 
have seen men pardoned from the peni- 
tentiary time after time. Did that de- 
stroy discipline? No. I am not asking 
now that this Board should find that: 
Whereas, We believe the boys were right 
and the Faculty were wrong, and there- 
fore we put the boys back. But that 
you believe that discipline can be main- 
tained there, and let the boys go back 
and confess their error and reinstate 
them all who are willing to walk up 
like men— 

THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you a 
question there. In considering the sug- 
gestion you have offered, what weight 
would you attach to the fact that all the 
students who were dismissed for both 
offenses have previously signed a pledge 
to abstain from hazing, and then what 
weight would you give to the fact that 
in the past the course which you now 
suggest, that is, reinstate the students 
dismissed for hazing upon the pledge 


of their classmates to abstain from haz- 
ing has been tried and the pledges have 
not been observed. What weight would 
you give to those facts? 

MR. SENTER: You have to go into 
individual cases there. 

MR. POWELL: The question which 
the chairman of your Board has just 
asked is a very important one and if 
there is no objection I wish to make a 
few remarks. The importance of the 
question is my apology for interrupting 
the Senator at this time and making this 
statement. i 


MR. SENTER: Go ahead, I will be 
glad to have you do so. 


MR, POWELL: I want to say to be- 
gin with, in ordersthat you may see my 
point more clearly. I have had some ex- 
periences jn. colleges and universities— 
if you will pardon the personal state- 
ment—we are trying to frankly solve this 
question. I am a graduate of Vanderbilt 
University and of Yale University, and 
have studied in German universities, and 
I have observed pretty widely those mat- 
ters with reference to colleges and uni- 
versities. I have been myself for a num- 
br of years a member of the Board of 
the Southwestern University, which is 
the head institution of the Methodist 


Church in Texas, and as a member of. 


one of the very important subcommittees 
of that institution we have had these 
things to deal with. I will tell you, 
further, a few years ago I was the college 
preacher at A. & M. for two years, and 
I want to bear my testimony to the 
quality and character of the young men 
whom I knew at that institution, and I 
have every reason to believe that the 
character of the young men as a whole 
has not changed since that time, and 
that is that they are as fine a set of 
men as there are in the United States 
gathered together today; they come from 
the great middle classes of our people— 

MR. BENNETT: You do not have to 
tell us that; we admit that. 

MR. POWELL: That is a very impor- 
tant thing to state. If you are going to 
appeal to a man on his honor, he must 
be of such a character that his honor 
is worth something. You could not ap- 
peal to a Mexican upon. his honor, be- 
cause he has no honor. I know men 
here from the very best families of Texas 
and when you have that you have some- 
thing upon which to plan, something 
upon which you may rely, and if you 
give it a good chance and cultivate it it 
is likely not to disappoint you. And now 
to answer that question. I want to say 
as the college preacher there that I in- 
troduced the Y. M. C. A. and a good 
many other features, and [I think I had 
an opportunity to test the students, and 
never did I at any time, at A. & M. Col- 
lege, call upon the student body and put 
it up to them that they did not respond. 
I believe if those twenty-seven and the 
466 students were taken in upon such 


16 


now. 


terms as you can agree upon, and it was 
placed up to them as a student body, 
which is made up of honorable, intelli- 
gent and representative citizens of the 
State, and you made them feel the im- 
portance of carrying out this agreement, 
I .feel sure that they would not disap- 
point you. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Do you include in 
the amnesty which you propose at this 
time any student who had violated a 
previous pledge made under similar cir- 
cumstances? 

JUDG# GUION: How many times 
would you make it, seven times? 


MR, POWELL: Our Master said, not — 
only seven times, but seven times seven 
times. I think that a great many of 
those students when they took that 
pledge did not really realize what it was, 
but I believe now, since all this has 
occurred—it has been put up to the stu- | 
dents in a way it never has before—I 
believe if he takes that pledge again 
and you put the responsibility of its 
execution upon the young man himself, 
he will respond in a way he never has 
before. There is one other point I want 
to speak to, but I will not mention that 
I believe if the amnesty should 
be extended to the twenty-seven and to 
the 466 alike, on condition that they 
come back and sign that pledge, and 
put the enforcement of that pledge not 
only in the hands of the Faculty and this 
Board, but also in the hands of the stu- 
dents themselves, and make them realize 
the full importance of their co-operation. 
That will solve all the trouble. I think 
I have a right to say how other stu- 
dent bodies are being controlled; at the 
Yale University, where there were more 
than 3,000 or 4,000 students when I was 
a student there— 


JUDGE GUION: 
there, was he not? 
MR. POWELL: Recently? 


JUDGE GUION: In the last few years 
in hazing, either killed or shot. 

MR. POWELL: I do not Know about 
that. I want to say in all institutions 
with which I have been connected or in 
any way associated, we recognize one 
great principle—I do not mean in a little 
prep school, but of a college grade—in 
most colleges men average more than 21 
years of age—and the enforcement of 
discipline is left to the students them- 
selves in a large measure. At A. & M. 
College this principle is recognized in 
one form, and that is that the students 
are set as officers over the other stu- 
dents. There are no officers at A. & M. 
College with reference to the enforce- 
ment of discipline, except the Command- 
ant, who is at the head of the whole 
concern. You are not alone in doing this, 
but it is according to the usage of the 
best. institutions of this country, seeking 
in every possible way to lay the respon- 
sibility on the students. If such an am- 
nesty could be proclaimed and the stu- 


One boy was killed 


dents could all get back to their work 
again, they will pledge themselves to see 
that these things to which the Faculty 
objects are wiped out. Not only will 
they refrain, but they will see that others 
refrain from it, and it seems to me that 
here is a golden opportunity, and you 
are in line with the way in which other 
institutions are being handled. 


MR. HART: I believe we want to 
finish up—we are here to get results 
for the College, for the Faculty and for 
the boys, and I believe that we had bet- 
ter not continue the discussion, but 
should close the discussion and proceed 
to get results now along the lines that 
prompted the members of the Board and 


members of the Faculty, and of course > 


the parents and the boys, too, to get to- 
gether. We will go just as far as we 
possibly can go, consistent with the dig- 
nity of the institution, in doing that 
which Senator Senter suggests, and I 
believe with a view of getting matters toa 
focus with the Board should confer with 
the Faculty, bearing in mind the sugges- 
tion made by Senator Senter, and that we 
adjourn and meet after lunch and en- 
deavor to finish the work along the lines 
that are best for all parties concerned. 
The people of Texas are voting a vast 
amount of money for the support of this 
institution, and we are trying to get the 
best results, and for the information of 
all present { want to say that my corre- 
Spondence with the President of the 
Board over the question of this trouble 
has been along the line that he wanted 
to get results. His sympathy was with 
the boys, who ought to understand and 
appreciate the gravity of this mistake on 
their part. I take the position of stand- 
ing by the Faculty and the law of the 
institution from the beginning, but any 
man, as weil as a boy, is liable to make 
mistakes, and as far aS We can go to give 
him a chance to rectify that mistake and 
let him continue on his career, we ought 
tO dO bb. 

JUDGE GUION: I just want to reply 
to a question you ask, in regard to the 
boys being dismissed for hazing and in- 
subordination. Now in the dim distance 
of some of your remarks this morning 
you made the statement that the boys in 
that insubordination were acting honor- 
ably, from the highest motives and sen- 
sibilities that could actuate young men, 
and you honored them for it. You honor 
the boys of that College for their in- 
subordination in coming to the aid of 
their comrades. Now, if that be true— 
if you honor them for that insubordi- 
nation, then that insubordination cannot 
be as grave an offense as hazing, and 
if you are correct in that, then it is im- 
possible for the insubordination to be 
as grave an offense as hazing. Those 
boys when they entered that College they 
made a pledge, with the understanding 
that they would keep the rules and reg- 
ulations of that College, that they would 


17 


not haze their fellow cadets; and if there 
can be a greater offense against a 
mother’s heart or a father’s heart than 
that of hazing, I do not know it. Where 
today is the soul of the boy who was 
rolled into eternity at the State Uni- 
versity of Taxas? Have the tears of the 
mother of that boy dried yet? Has the 
anguish of that father been swept away? 
Had your boy met with such a fate at 
A. & M. College as the result of hazing, 
where would you stand today in drawing 
the difference between the offense of 
hazing and insubordination? Yes, I be- 
lieve with you that these boys were mis- 
led by a mistaken sense of honor when 
they were guilty of insubordination, but 
they were not misled by any mistaken 
sense of honor when they were guilty of 
hazing and engaged in hazing, because 
they had pledged themselves not to 
haze, and all the preachers in the world 
can never tell me or advise me that the 
man, or the old man, who violates an 
honorable pledge, which he takes upon 
entering an institution of learning, es- 
pecially a State institution, should be 
washed white and pure without some 
adequate punishment being meted out to 
him, for he forgets an honorable pledge 
and then seeks to keep one to his class 
which he had no right to make. I be- 
lieve when those boys were guilty of 
insubordination that they were misled, 
and that they thought they were doing 
the honorable thing and staying by their 
comrades, and for that reason there 
should be amnesty for the insubordina- 
tion, because of the feeling that was 
rankling in the hearts of those unin- 
formed young men, and therefore they 
should be forgiven, to a certain exteat. 
Did you ever attend a political conven- 
tion, Senator? I believe that you have. 
You see a great concourse of people and 
you find there Senator Senter and half 
a dozen other leading minds leading a 
great body of grown and bearded men, 
either into the ways of righteousness or 
into the ways of political error. It would 
be Senator Senter and Judge This and 
Colonel That who would be leading that 
great body of the convention into error 
or righteousness. Then when the people 
rise up they might forgive, they might 
condone and extend amnesty to such 
fellows as myself who had been misled 
and carried off by the leaders. 


THE CHAIRMAN: But they would 
not give them an office. 


JUDGE GUION: It would be wrong. 
Time and again have I attended conven- 
tions in this State, though no politician, 
God forbid—never sought a political of- 
fice in my life—the Governor could not 
run after me fast enough to give me one, 
and neither could the people—and per- 
mit me to say, talking about politics in 
the College and out of the College. I 
have been there for two years and I 
have never seen it; I have sought it and 
hunted for it with a microscope and I 


have never found it; I have used a tele- 
scope in looking for it, and I cannot find 
it. If it is there it ought to be crushed 
like a serpent, and the first statement I 
ever made to the Faculty of that College 
was that if there was any politics in this 
College, it should be crushed and kept 
out. Coming back now to the other ques- 
tion—insubordination and hazing, Now let 
us say that of the whole 466 boys there 
were but a few of them who were lead- 
ers; that they were at the bottom and 
center of the trouble which had come 
about with the Faculty of the College 
previous to that time; do you think that 
they, having violated the pledge which 
they took, and haying misled other boys 
by their leadership, I ask you the ques- 
tion: Should they stand upon an equal 
footing and should they receive the same 
treatment as the boy who goes there and 
keeps the rules of that College and has 
‘tried to grow up into magnificent Texas 
manhood and only makes a slip by rea- 
son of their leadership? I say not. I 
agree with you in the first statement 
that the boys in their insubordination 
thought they were bearing aloft the 
banner of righteousness. They were 
mistaken; they were wrong, but they 
believed it. But when they hazed 
they knew they were wrong; they 
may have done it in a boyish spirit and 
all that, but they did wrong. They did it 
openly with their eyes wide open, I am 
glad you had that wonderful influence 
when you were there—I am glad you had 
that wonderful influence with the boys 
when you were there, and I am only 
sorry that influence had not extended 
down through the years to the present 
time and kept those boys from hazing 
and insubordination, and I trust that you 
had every one of them enroll his name 
upon the roll of some church while you 
were there, and I trust when this is over 
and the clouds have rolled by, we will 
have no more hazing and no more insub- 
ordination in A. & M. College, and when 
the Faculty can rule the College and 
not the boys, and that Senator Senter 
and myself can shake hands and say 
Hallelujah! I believe the time will come. 
I am rejoiced to have you with us to- 
day, and I am delighted at the tone of 
your remarks; I expected to hear some- 
thing different, and I am pleased with 
the stand you have taken—that you do 
not want to throw a stumbling block in 
the way of the President of the College 
or the Board of Directors, and that all 
you want to do is to devise some way 
and some means honorable to them and 
fair to the boys and reinstate them in 
the College., You say you feel a hesi- 
tancy in submitting a plan to this Board, 
and I say to you that we do not want 
you to feel any hesitancy about submit- 
ting your plan. Tell us what you think 
would be reasonable and right; you say 


you have investigated it and that you 
have the evidence before you of every- 


18 


‘thing which has transpired there; 


the 
evidence of everything which has led up 
to this hazing and to this unfortunate 
occurrence. Now, Senator, give us the 
benefit of your investigation, and tell 
this Board as to what your idea is and 
how we should deal with this question 
as to the readmission of the boys into 
the College. I wish there was some way, 
fair and just and honorable to everyone 
by which every boy could be reinstated, 
but if there is not the Faculty must be 
supreme. Take away the supremacy of 
the Faculty of the great A. & M. College; 
take away the supremacy of the Faculty 
of the great Texas University, and you 
are tearing down the flag of education 
in Texas. The future greatness of this 
State must come through the State Uni- 
versity—it must come through A, & M. 
College and Normal Schools of Texas, 
and it must come through the doors of 
the public schools and the district schools 
of the State, and whenever you do one 
thing to sap the power of the Board of 
Directors or the Faculty of one of these 
institutions, then you are misguided and 
you are tearing down the cause of edu- 
cation. It would be sowing the seed of 
sedition into the hearts of the boys oi 
the colleges to say to them: Boys, you 
may commit this offense against the 
rules, you may be guilty of insubordina- 
tion—and yet you say admit them and 
you believe they would do right, and if 
they do not do it, expel them—and the 
next time, about four or five years from 
now, when hazing became bad in that 
College again, and the boys were guilty 
of insubordination, and you had a Fac- 
ulty with the nerve and backbone to dis- 
charge 466 boys at one time, for the 
good of the College, then again you 
would hear the cry from the boys. You 
say forgive seven times seven times, and 
I say that is all right with the’ Divine 
law; that is all right in the churches, 
while you administer it according to the 
Holy Writ—but I say to you that it won’t 
run the schools of Texas. 

ADJOURNMENT was here taken until 
5.0 Clock py 2m, 


AFTERNOON SESSION. 


THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, I am 
instructed to say that the Board of Di: 
rectors, acting on the suggestion of Mr. 
Senter this forenoon, that in lieu of a 
formal hearing, that the Board consider 
the representations made by himself and 
others of the terms upon which dismissed 
students be readmitted; the Board hav- 
ing acted upon that suggestion and con- 
sidered the measures that had been pro- 
posed both by the friends of the stu- 
dents, by the Faculty and by the indi- 
vidual members of the Board, has this 
suggestion to offer at this time: © 

First: That the Faculty be sustained 
in its action in dealing with the recent 
breaches of discipline. 

Second: That all who were dismissed 
February 1 be readmitted on acknowl- 
edgment of error and the signing of a 
pledge prescribed by the Faculty as to 
future conduct. 

Third: That no action be taken by 
the Board on the readmission of the 
twenty-seven students dismissed for haz- 
ing, and that we approve of the policy 
heretofore adopted by the Faculty in in- 
terposing no objection to their admission 
into other schools. 

We tender that as our response to the 
suggestion made by Mr. Senter this 
morning. 

MR. SENTER: Is that in such shape 
as I could take it and read it? 

THE CHAIRMAN: - The stenographer 
will read it to you. 

(The stenographer retired with Mr. 
Senter and read to him and those inter- 
ested with him the above response of the 
Board of Directors.) 

MR. SENTER: Mr. Chairman and Gen- 
tlemen of the Board, the suggestions 
that have been made have been consid- 
ered by all those who were present here 
on behalf of the students, and after de- 
liberation they have instructed me by a 
unanimous vote of all at interest to 
suggest what they believe to be reason- 
able terms by way of a counter propo- 
sition, which we earnestly hope will meet 
with your approval. 


SENTER’S COUNTER PROPOSITION. 


First: That the 466 students be re- 
instated to their former standing, both 
academic and military, with opportunity 
to make up grades and examinations to 
be provided for the purpose, so as to 
enable them to make up their lost time. 


Second: That all students who apply 
for readmission to sign a pledge to re- 
frain from hazing themselves and to co- 
operate with the Faculty to the full ex- 
tent of their ability to suppress the prac- 
tice of hazing. 


19 


Third: That the twenty-seven  stu- 
dents who were expelled for hazing be 
reinstated and at once given honorable 
discharge. 

Now, gentlemen, I hope I may have 
the earnest, and I might say, the prayer- 
ful consideration of the Board for a mo- 
ment when I make the suggestion I am 
now going to make to you. You have 
already considered and it has been sub- 
mitted to you, and I am glad to say 
that I believe it has appealed to every 
member of the Board, that these twenty- 
seven who were expelled for hazing have 
now been put in a situation that is a 
very serious one. I assure you that our 
committee and those present here are not 
acting in any spirit of seeking to vindi- 
cate the action of the boys, or for any 
purpose other than to obtain the best 
results. The discussion here has devel- 
oped the fact that there is no very se- 
rious difference between any of us, ex- 
cept as it may involve the reinstatement 
of those twenty-seven boys. Now, we 
simply appeal to you as men, and I sup- 
pose most of you are fathers; we appeal 
to you as-men to rise above petty con- 
sideration that simply delights to scrap 
and quarrel for the purpose of winning 
a victory. The other boys feel that what- 
ever the offense of the twenty-seven 
boys, theirs is a more serious one; it is 
a capital offense. Now, gentlemen, let 
me suggest this to you, and I hope you 
won’t think I am entering into the do- 
main of speculation or one beyond my 
subject, but: I say the most beautiful 
piece of fiction was Victor Hugo’s Mis- 
erables, where a boy was persecuted to 
the end of his life for stealing bread, 
while hundreds of people about him were 
punished lightly’for serious offenses. I 
myself in this town many years ago knew 
one man who killed another in cold blood 
and he was only punished by a sentence 
of two years, and a week afterwards a 
man who had committed murder under 
the most serious provocation was sent 
up for a lifetime. That made an im- 
pression upon me that I will never forget. 

Now, Mr. Milner has said that all of 
these were good boys, and outside of this 
offense they had good records. Is that 
true, Mr. Milner? 


COL. MILNER: That is true. 


THE CHAIRMAN: Iam instructed by 
the Board to say that after very careful 
consideration the Board does not feel 
that it is able to agree to the proposi- 
tion submitted by Mr. Senter as to the 
twenty-seven boys dismissed for hazing. 
In respect to the cases of those dis- 
missed for insubordination, there is prac- 
tically no difference between us, because 
the matters you ask with respect to the 
examination and the like is now being 
done and will continue to be done in sub- 
stantially the same way in which you 
make the request. In the case of the 
twenty-seven boys dismissed for hazing, 
the Board feels that it would not be dis- 


~ al 


charging its full duty to the State and 
to the College to take the action you 
have requested. We feel very deeply the 
responsibility of our action in this case 
and we feel keenly our duty to the Col- 
lege, and we feel more Keenly the obliga- 
tion which rests upon us to put an end 
to hazing at the A. & M. College, and 
we feel that we should do nothing that 
could in any way be construed as weak- 
ening in our stand on that matter. You 
will notice if you will read our resolu- 
tion, it is to this effect: That no action 
be taken by the Board on the readmis- 
sion of the students dismissed for hazing. 
The Board simply declines to act at this 
time on their cases; it commits itself no 
further than theslanguage indicates, and 
we further say that we approve the pol- 
icy heretofore adopted by the Faculty 
in interposing no objection to their ad- 
mission to other schools, so that the 
substance of our action is that for the 
present we must decline to readmit them, 
but take no stand with respect to future 
action; but in the meantime offering no 
objection and putting no obstacle in the 
way of their entering other schools. 


MR. SENTER: Mr. Chairman, in view 
of what has been stated it would be futile 
to discuss any facts involving those ques- 


tions. 1] have no desire to unnecessarily 
consume your time. [ simply pass from 
that. I have now discharged what I 


considered to be a solemn duty and a 
very responsible duty that came upon me 
without my seeking it, to the end that 
every possible means might be exhausted 
to arrive at an amicable solution of the 
situation—this unfortunate situation. I 
feel that all has been done by those 
of us who have been. speaking on the 
side of the students that we can possibly 
do, so I see nothing further to be done 
except to ask that the Board hear our 
charges and complaints, with the sug- 
gestion to the Board that we propose if 
given the opportunity to do so, to prove 
absolutely every charge that was sub- 
mitted in my letter to Chairman Peteet. 
I now assure the Board that most of 
those charges were based on my per- 
sonal investigation, and we ask permis- 
sion to prove every charge. If every 
charge that is made there is true, then, 
gentlemen, we submit it is for you to 
determine what your action shall be. TIT 
have applied for the testimony to show 
that the so-called hazing was not hazing, 
and you have the facilities in your con- 
trol to bring that testimony here. I 
understand this Board is superior to 
the Faculty, and it is within its prov- 
ince to review its actions. This testi- 
mony consists largely of the testimony 
of the boys themselves, to\show the facts 
we have alleged. We further ask that 
the hearing shall be executive and that 
every boy who testifies here shall be 
given an assurance that there will be 
no punishment for him for testifying 
freely and telling the Board the facts. 


20 


I assume if these things are true the 
Board desires to know it. They were 
considered carefully and the charges 
made upon deliberation and with the 
knowledge of the witnesses we had in 
mind, but the testimony is largely under 
the control of the Faculty; the charges 
involve the good faith of the Faculty, 
and the question of the propriety of their 
action from the start. We ask the Board 
for full opportunity to develop this. 


THE CHAIRMAN: It is proper for me 
to say in behalf of the Board that the 
action we have just taken was in re- 
sponse to the suggestion of Mr. Senter 
that we consider these matters in lieu 
of a formal hearing. We accepted his 
proposal in good faith, having gone as 
far as we think our obligation to all par- 
ties at interest will permit us to go. 
Our negotiations have resulted in an 
agreement between the complainants in 
this case and the Board on all matters 
except the terms of readmission of the 
twenty-seven students dismissed for haz- 
ing. It would seem to me to be entirely 
proper, not having been able to agree 
upon that single proposition, that the 
hearing should proceed upon that point 
and be confined to that, an agreement 
having been reached upon the other 
points in controversy, and I will now 
offer anybody full opportunity to be 
heard and submit evidence upon that 
point, and I might go further and say 
that we will receive complaints upon 
any one of the four points indicated in 
our communication this morning and the 
Board is now ready to hear any com- 
plaint that may be made in conformity 
with those four propositions. 

MR. SENTER: I rise now to ask for 
information. Do I understand that the 
Board now declines to hear complaints 
submitted in our specifications. 

THE CHAIRMAN: The Board invites 
you to submit complaints in accordance 
with the schedule indicated in that com- 
munication. 


MR. SENTER: Then I have simply 
this to say: We appealed to Governor 
Colquitt and proposed to submit this 
matter personally to him and he sug- 
gested a hearing of the complaints be- 
fore the Board. As I understand it, the 
Board now undertakes to confine and 
limit the complaints that we may make. 
If you do that I will enter into no such 
hearing, but shall immediately go to the 
Legislature of Texas and ask that this 
whole matter be investigated and that 
we have an opportunity to put every fact 
that is relevant to this matter before the 
Legislature, I understood when we came 
here, from the notice of the President 
of the Board, that we were to have a 
hearing, and to undertake to say that 
the hearing shall be limited to a partic- 
ular matter, that is to be predetermined 
by the Board, is to simply, as I see this 
matter,. preclude the admission of the 
most relevant testimony that could be 


submitted, and I decline to go into any 
proceeding limited and hog tied in any 
such fashion as that. It was substan- 
Sstially Governor Colquitt’s ° suggestion 
that we were to have a hearing before 
the Board, and in good faith we came 
here to present evidence upon the 
charges submitted, and we submit that 
every one of them is a matter that 
ought to be considered by this Board 
and is material and important. Now, 
without further statement I simply say 
that I will not, on behalf of those I rep- 
resent, undertake—I would consider that 
it would not be an investigation, but 
simply something else than an investi- 
gation, and consequently being so lim- 
ited and so cut off we will have to pre- 
sent our case to some one who will listen 
toit. That is:all-l ean say. 


JUDGE KONE: I am very sorry that 
Mr. Senter does not accept the terms 
that the Board has made. My convictions 
are that if he and those interested with 
him will let the Board work this matter 
out, they will do it in a fair and impar- 
tial and just manner. I want to say 
further that I believe that every bit of 
legitimate testimony that could be intro: 
duced in this investigation can be intro: 
duced under the items set forth there. 


MR. CUSHMAN: I was one of the 466 
that was fired. I was one of the com: 
mittee that was sent to the Faculty, and 
I understand that they consider me as 
a red rag in this affair, a leader; but 
I do not consider myself as such. These 
fellows. that are going back, they are 
having to say they believe they did 
wrong, and J know that there is a good 
part of the boys who are out who don’t 
believe they did wrong; I do not myself, 
and I do not believe that most of the 
boys do. These fellows are forced to 
go back and say they did wrong, and go 
back under false pretenses, when they 
don’t believe that. They are going back 
any way, because their folks are forcing 
them back and everything like that. Mr. 
Peteet said awhile ago they had stopped 
hazing down there. That is the way 
they are stopping it. These fellows all 
took an oath until these twenty-seven 
boys were given justice they would not 
go back—they virtually took an oath to 
that effect. They are breaking their oath 
and going back, and the Faculty is re- 
quiring a promise from them not to haze 
any more. Do they think that those men 
that broke their oath will go back there 
and stand up to a promise they make; 
IT don’t think they will. As far as l am 
concerned, if I go back there and prom- 
ise to put down hazing, I will do all in 
my power to put it down, but I do not 
think that I am going back. I know 
I am not under the present conditions. 
I don’t think those twenty-seven boys got 
a fair deal. We admit they were guilty 
of hazing, if you call a mild form of strap- 
ping hazing; it was a mild form that was 
taken in good humor—if you call that 


21 


hazing, we admit they were guilty. I 
would be willing to swear that any night 
I have been at school there, and I have 
been there three years, and after they 
got started good, I would be willing to 
swear that I could go around in those 
halls and find more than one case of 
hazing, if you call that hazing. The Pres- 
ident has seventy-five letters, he told us, 
from men on their side condemning haz- 
ing and asking him to investigate things. 
It is the first letter that was ever inves- 
tigated, and they want to get this big 
appropriation at Austin. Why is it those 
other letters were not investigated? He 
says there is a difference, that this is 
specific hazing. I ask*him what is the 
difference? Every time I got hazed it 
was specific hazing; he never told us 
the difference between general and spe- 
cific hazing. I was on this committee, 
and right now I am barred from going 
back if I wanted to. I understand from 
a letter I read that a man who has ever 
said anything in favor of the strike could 
not go back there. I was not there at 
the first meeting they had on this ques- 
tion, I got there late; they decided to 
go into this thing before I got there. I 
thought it was a pretty radical move, 
but I thought we would have to go—I 
did not see any other way out of it. We 
have sent up petitions before, and they 
have been turned down. They would not 
consider this petition; they said we can- 
not look at that, and We sent the second 
one, and as you know, they said they 
would fire every man whose name was 
on it. I could not go up there and take 
my name off that petition at all. I put 
it on there and when [ put it on there 
I told those boys I would stick with them 
until these twenty-seven men were given 
another hearing and a fair deal, and we 
believe a fair deal would be some other 
punishment. They were guilty of hazing, 
and the Faculty generally dismisses them 
for hazing, but that lies with the Faculty. 
They could have put some other punish- 
ment on these boys if they had wanted 
to, and I believe they should. They can- 
not go to any other school. As far as I 
am concerned, it has hit me hard. If 
was a junior and I could graduate next 
year, and I wanted to graduate there. I 
love that school as much as any man 
there. I got out there on the football 
club and fought for it all last season. 
At first it didn’t look like I would make 
the club, but I did, and I fought for ‘it. 
I love the school as much as any one, 
but I do ont see how I can go back there 
under the conditions. 


THE CHAIRMAN: I want to say be- 


fore you retire, Mr. Senter, that in our 
judgment we have denied no one a hear- 
ing. We have simply asked those who 
have complaints to make to make the 
compla‘nts with respect to the issues now 
pending and the Board will, in its own 
way, proceed with such inquiry as they 
think proper to make. We regret very 


much the refusal of you gentlemen to 
participate in this hearing. 


MR. TERRELL: Before Senator Sent- 
er retires, and as a citizen of Texas, and 
probably the only man present who is 
not in some way directly interested in the 
subject-matter, I want to say that I 
should regret very .much, as a citizen 
of this State, to see this body adjourn 
and come to no conclusion and no under- 
standing among yourselves, among the 
Board or Faculty, and to that end only 
I want to speak a few words. As a law- 
yer, and I submit the proposition to Sen- 
ator Senter, the specifications laid down 
by the Board are broader than the speci- 
fications laid down by him. In other 
words, the specifications as laid down 
by the Board concerning those things 
you can go into and submit proof upon 
are much broader in my mind than those 
things specifically set forth by Senator 
Senter. 


MR. SENTHR: If that be true, why 
should there be any objection to consid- 
ering the matters we asked to be con- 
sidered, if what is tendered by the Board 
would admit what we offered to prove, 
and more besides, why have they pro- 
posed to hear testimony on that, and why 
do they refuse to act upon it? 


MR. TERRELL: JI think at least three 
members of this Board have spoken and 
said to you that they understood every- 
thing you submitted could be submitted 
and proven upon the specifications sub- 
mitted by them. If this is true, what 
difference does it make? You are more 
restricted by your specifications than 
you are by theirs, because yours are spe- 
cific allegations and under the rule of 
pleading you would be restricted to those 
specific allegations submitted by you, 
whereas under their offer you would have 
a broader field. I think jit would be 
more than unfortunate to go to the Leg- 
islature about it one way or the other. 
The Legislature has had enough investi- 
gations and we do not want any more 
of it. It is not in the interest of this 
great school of ours, or of this great 
State. We do not want this great school 
to get into politics. You have a Board 
and Faculty here that can handle the sit- 
uation and if I were a member of the 
Legislature I would not vote for an in- 
vestigation. I would say: Here is a 
Board and Faculty, and if they cannot 
do something, the Governor probably can. 
I do not believe there is any such dif- 
ference between you gentlemen as ought 
to make a breach here and now, and 
that you could in some way get together, 
because you are so near together. I must 
say I think the Board is absolutely cor- 
rect in saying they will not submit to 
the last proposition. It would be in etfect 
to say that these men are guilty, and 
yet we will whitewash them and take 
them back. My idea is that you are so 
nearly together that you ought to go on. 
It would be unfortunate to not get to- 


22, 


_termines nothing. 


gether now. 


MR. SENTER: I am a friend of every 
educational interest. I say to you, and I 
say it frankly, that in this matter I had 
no interest to subserve except to help 
some other people that I thought were 
not fairly treated. I do not say the 
Board was responsible. There is no use 
to deal in incriminations here, but I say 
to you gentlemen, and I say it in all 
frankness, that I am surprised, and I 
feel—I do not know how to put it—i 
don’t want to add anything to the resent- 
ment of any human being on earth; these 
twenty-seven boys—I know not a one of 
them, and I knew the parents of only. 
one—but it seems to me gentlemen, that 
there can be, from my point of view, I 
hope I am mistaken—I would like to be © 
mistaken about it—I would rather be 
mistaken about it than right; but it seems 
to me that the question here is whether 
twenty-seven boys shall be disgraced; 
but I pledge you my word of honor, and 
I think I am entitled to have that pledge 
considered, that I personally have inves- 
tigated the case and there is not a mem- 
ber of this Board that would have ex- 
pelled any one of those twenty-seven 
boys. In order to deal with that ques- 
tion—it concerns motive—you deal with 
the whole question on the merits of this 
case. If you simply limit the inquiry to 
the question as to the immediate facts 
without looking to all the surroundings, 
why there is no lawyer here but knows 
that is not an investigation. That de- 
No man can make 
up his mind about this without going 
into,all ‘the’ facts. ,I say to you inet 
candor that whenever a judge under- 
takes to put the limits upon an investi- 
gation it will not do, but it is for you 
to determine your duty. 

JUDGE GUION: I cannot see the facts 
you want to prove. 


MR. SENTER: It is my contention 
that if I were to stand here and pledge 
the boys to that, there is not one of 
them who would agree to abide by it, 
and whenever a man feels that intensely, 
it does seem to me, when men are stand- 
ing for their conscience and are wiling 
to sacrifice everything, many things dear 
to them, upon a question of principle, 
it ought to call for the serious consid- 
eration of men. 


JUDGH GUION: You say you will 
take this matter before the Legislature 
because we do not agree with you and 
we do not accede to your special issue 
on that one question of these twenty- 
seven boys, you say you. will take it 
before the Legislature. If we took off 
the hinges and throwed the doors wide 
open and let you make charges from 
Dan to Beersheba, and from the Red 
River to the Rio Grande, and introduce 
evidence here for the next thirty days, 
and we do not decide in your favor, 
won’t you still take it before the Leg- 
islature? Would you not still take it 


before the Legislature, no matter what 
the Board might honestly do and con- 
Sider for the benefit of the school? 
Would you not then still go before the 
Legislature and the Governor and feel 
that you had not received justice before 
the Board? I have been a practicing 
lawyer for nearly forty years, and they 
are broad enough and wide enough to 
admit every bit of evidence you could 
conjure up to sustain you in the conten- 
tion that the Faculty did wrong when 
they dismissed the twenty-seven boys. 
This Board has formulated these four 
measures upon which to hear you, to de- 
termine the fact whether or not the Fac- 
ulty did wrong, first in dismissing the 
boys; second, are they doing wrong in 
not permitting them to come back; third, 
have they discriminated in favor of one 
or against the other? Now,.we say, lay- 
ing aside the question of discrimination, 
the 466 boys are put upon an equal foot- 
ing; each and every one of those boys 
can come before that Faculty and re- 
enter that school, the first boy and the 
466th boy upon the same and equal foot- 
ing. He will be given a chance to make 
up his grade. That is the only differ- 
ence between us, and because we do not 
agree with you that those twenty-seven 
boys should be reinstated and then given 
an honorable discharge, you tell us that 
you are going before the Legislature. 
You tell us that you demand an inves- 
tigation and a trial of the Faculty; that 
you consider some wrong act done by 
the Faculty, not. tending toward the dis- 
missal of those students from that Col- 
lege, but simply for the parpose of bring- 
ing obloquy upan the Faculty; not to 
establish the fact that these boys ought 
to be readmitted to the College; and I 
say when you are doing that you are 
committing a crime against education in 
Texas; whenever you seek to pull down 
the powers that be, then, sir, you are 
pandering to a spirit of unrest, a rebel- 
lion against the constituted authorities, 
this feeling that is rife all over the land 
it has unfortunately gotten into the Col- 
lege, as the speech that was made by 
the young student of the College has 
proven to me conclusively—the remarks 
he made showed that there is rebellion 
there. It is perfectly conclusive to me 
from the statement of that young man 
that there is something wrong there. He 
says they undertook to dictate to the 
Faculty, that they took an oath, 466 of 
them, that they should stand in phalanx, 
a solid wall, unil the Faculty came to 
their way of thinking and reversed them- 
selves and permitted them to say to the 
Faculty, “We .are right and you are 
wrong.” You must feel after hearing 
that young man talk that the life of the 
A. & M. College is trembling in the bal- 
ance; you must feel deep down in your 
hearts that the life of that institution 
which has been cherished by the people 
of this State is now trembling in the 
balance. You cannot tell me that the 


1s 
~~ 


fate of that institution—that the founda- 
tion of that institution would crumble 
ino dust and the purpose for which it 
was instituted would amount to nothing 
if those twenty-seven young men are not 
reinstated and give an. honorable dis- 
charge. They have ot complained; they 
have not made a complaint to this Board. 
They have not made a complaint to that 


Faculty. When they were dismissed for 


hazing they admitted their guilt and 
they went out: from their College and 
made no complaint to this Board and 
they made no complaint to that Faculty, 
because they knew they were guilty and 
they accepted their dismissal from that 
College. It will not tear down that Col- 
lege for people to know that twenty- 
seven men have been dismissed from it 
for. hazing, but I will tell you that to 
stir up the people and to stir up the 
Legislature and create enemies for that 
school and for that College is a crime 
against good government and against 
education, and it is wrong. Leave this 
thing to the Board, and let them handle 
i. This is a matter you cannot handle 
in a few hours or a few days. It is a 
matter that you cannot right by bring- 
ing testimony here to try to blacken the 
fame and the character and the honesty 
and integrity of the Faculty. You can- 
not accomplish any good by that, you 
cannot .build up the interests of that 
school by doing that. Leave it in 
the hands of this Board, and I want 
to say in behalf of each and every one 
of them that I believe they are honest 
and honorable and high-toned men. They 
may not be as bright or brainy as some, 
but their integrity, their honor and their 
honesty is above reproach, and it shall 
not go out to the people of this land 
that we, have denied you or any other 
man or any father or mother a hearing 
as to the true merits of this question, 
as to whether her boy or his son was 
rightfully expelled from that school. We 
are ready and willing and we are wait- 
ing to have you introduce testimony 
here to prove to us, as broad as you 
please, and as many witnesses as you 
please, and all the records that you can 
rake and scrape to show us that those 
boys have been wrongfully expelled from 
that school, and that we are wrong in 
not demanding that the Faculty take 
them back. We are ready and willing 
and waiting and we have come here for 
that purpose. You have stated the testi- 
mony was strictly under the control of 
the Faculty, and I presume that would 
relate to the request that you made that 
we bring the boys from the A. & M. 
College here to testify. Senator, those 
boys were sent there by their fathers 
and mothers and their guardians to at- 
tend that College and to make their 
grades and to be there and receive an 
education. Senator, it is not within the 
power of this Board to bring one single 
boy from that College here to Fort 
Worth to testify in this case without 


the consent of their parents or guard- 
ians. It is not within our power to do it 
Suppose we should order them here from 
that College and. a wreck should take 
place upon the train, you would be the 
first man to raise your voice to show 
who is responsible. There is a terror 
raging in this land called meningitis. 
If this Board should take upon itself the 
responsibility to bring those boys from 
the place where their parents have sent 
them to come here to testify and after- 
ward one of them should return and 
take meningitis or carry it back there 
among those six or seven hufidred boys 
attending that school, who would bear 
the brunt of that blame? It would be 
you gentlemen who have made this com- 
plaint, and this Board and this Faculty 
and we would be denounced from one 
end of this State to the other. If there 
is any boy you want at that College 
to testify in this case and his parents 
are willing to it and will give their con- 
sent, I shall vote for you to have him, 
although it would take him away from 
class work. You are asking us to do 
that which we have no power or right 
to do. Let us come together on this. 
Let us work for the good of the A. & M. 
College, and let us stop this strife and 
turmoil. Leave the twenty-seven boys 
in the hands of the Directors of 
College to deal with as they see fit in 
the future. Accept the proposition which 
we have made you. The 466 boys shall 
come back upon equal terms, one with 
another. Leave the twenty-seven in the 
hands of the, Directors of A. & M. Col- 
lege to be dealt with justly and fairly 
in the future. Do not force a contest 
between the Faculty and the boys. You 
are seeking to make us accede to the 
demands of the 466 boys, and I will 
tell you the action of those 466 boys. 
Their act of insubordination is a great 
rock wall. It has built up a great rea- 
son why we should not at the drop of 
the hat stop and say we will take them 
back and will mete out no punishment 
to them. I believe you are honest; I 
do not impugn your motives; I believe 
you want to be fair; I believe you want 
to be just and that you love the College 
and love the boys, but you cannot help 
the interest of the boys by raising a great 
cry and hue against their alma mater. 
It cannot be done and if you go 
before the Legislature, as God is my 
helper, I will meet you there on that. 
day and we will give talk for talk and 
we will appeal to the wise men of Texas 
upon this question and we will ask that 
justice be done to the boys and to the 
College although the heavens fall. It 
is far better that the twenty-seven boys 
should suffer for awhile than that the 
whole College should suffer. I am sorry 
I have been forced into making so many 


talks and talking so earnestly over this 
matter, but I want you to think deep 
down in your heart about this. 


this: 


24 


MR. SENTER: I hope you will in- 
dulge me for a moment, because I shall 
not address you again on this subject, 
I promise you that. The remarks that 
were made by Judge Guion call, in self- 
defense, for these suggestions that I 
shall make. I think that what has been 
done here today by the fathers of the 
twenty-seven—I have not assumed to dic- 
tate as to what they shall do—I think 
what has been proposed and what has 
been offered is the best reply that could 
be made to any criticism of our course. 
We have attempted to meet you gentle- 
men upon the ground of your own choos- 
ing; we have attempted to make it pos- 
sible for you to act without sacrificing . 
a single principle of right that you or | 
the Faculty have asserted. We have 
gone farther, gentlemen, than any con- 
troversial spirit would have gone. I want 
to say to you that in my own precedure 
in this matter I have been largely guided 
by the two gentlemen who have before 
been connected with this school. Mr. 
McGinnis has been there and seen from 
time to time and has attended the school, 
every commencement, and loved it as an 
old home, and nothing could be farther 
from his thoughts than to take any step 
or to do anything that would reflect 
discredit upon this school or cause any 
injury whatever to it. My friend, the 
Rev. Mr. Powell, had been associated 
there and in our private conferences 
about the matter we have labored and 
consulted him with a larger experience 
by far than I had of the conditions, and 
tried to reach an agreement, and a re- 
sult that would be best and that would 
put those boys back in school on hon- 
orable terms without questioning any- 
one’s authority, without subtracting in 
any degree from the authority of the 
Faculty or without leading any boy who 
might go back to believe he had won a 
victory or that he had any right there 
to stand up in the future— 

JUDGE KONE: If we were to accede 
to your last propositions would not those 
boys have absolutely won their conten- 
tion? 


MR. SENTER: No, sir. I wish I knew 
how to impress it upon the faculty that 
that is true. I have made it my business 
for years to study human nature. I have 
nothing against the A. & M., because 
when any man proposed to give it a dol- 
lar I proposed to give jit two dollars, 
and do today, independent of what you 
may do here, I undertake to say when 
it comes to building up that school 
I am still with you, and [I refuse to en- 
tertain any spirit of resentment. I say 
to you gentlemen that I do not think 
you can possibly appreciate it, but you 
have a spirit of resentment stirred up 
in this State based upon the idea that 
a wrong has been done by the Faculty 
and they refuse to see it and you refuse 
to see it. As a question of principle, I 
say to you that no man can deny if a 


teacher does wrong, that wrong is a 
greater wrong than if the pupil does the 
wrong. I would rather have my boy 
taught that right is always right than 
to be taught that the Diaz system of 
government is the best. I say to you, 
it is better; the doctrine that is pro- 
claimed here, no matter what the Faculty 
does it must be sustained, I say that 
absolutely defies every tenet of a man 
who is attempting in our system of 
government to reach a social training. 
Now, I call upon Lieutenant Brown to 
deny or correct me if I am wrong; itis a 
fact, one of the boys is here today, four 
boys were tried there on indefinite fur- 
loughs and pronounced guilty of hazing; 
they were off on indefinite furloughs and 
never. heard any charges _ preferred 
against them until their fathers received 
notice. ; 

JUDGE GUION: Are they guilty? 

MR. SENTER: That is not a proper 
question to put. You will pardon me, but 
since Judge Guion has suggested my duty 
I will suggest his, because I accord to 
him a desire and I accord to this Board 
the desire, and to Mr. Peteet there, with 
whom I have differed more sharply, a 
desire to reach what I should strive to 
reach, and what I would express as a 
right result; I am dealing with results. 
When it is brought to your attention that 
boys have been convicted and expelled, 
I do not care what the charge is, I do 
not care what the proof is, I say under 
the American flag to say there is a sin- 
gle place where you can try a man and 
convict him and assess a capital pun- 
ishment without him being present and 
without him knowing anything about the 
charges, or without him hearing anything 
about it until he receives notice that he 
has been convicted—gentlemen, I hesitate 
to characterize that proceeding as I view 
it; it is repulsive to every man educated 
under our system of government. 


THE CHAIRMAN: A full hearing 
would place some matters which you 
have just stated in an entirely different 
light and we have invited you to submit 
your testimony and the Faculty to sub- 
mit its testimony upon the matter, and 
a hearing would place the matter in a 
light entirely different from that in which 
you have placed it, but you have declined 
that invitation. j 

MR. SENTER: When you say to me, 
“You may proceed along these lines so 
far and -no farther, and you may proceed 
along those lines so far and no farther,” 
then I decline to go with you in any 
direction. 

THE CHAIRMAN: Yet whenever you 
enter the courthouse to try a case you 
do that very thing. 

MR. SENTER: When I enter a court- 
house I go there—every specification 
that has been made there specifies a com- 
plaint or touches the conduct of the 
Faculty. You agree to try the conduct 
of the boys but not the conduct of the 


Faculty. I say when a Faculty wrongs 
five hundred students it does more wrong 
than when five hundred students do a 
wrong. 

THE CHAIRMAN: We have invited 
you to show where the Faculty did 
wrong. 

MR. SENTER: Judge QGuion’s reply 
was a complete reply to Judge Terrell. 
Whenever you go into an investigation 
of that matter the question is whether 
that strike or whatever you call it was 
due to the fault of the boys or the Fac- 
ulty and everything that throws light 
upon it ought to be admissible. If the 
Faculty was responsible, any fact throw- 
ing light upon that question is material 
and our contention is that the Faculty 
is responsible for the trouble among the 
boys. I say to you from my point of 
view, and I believe it with all my heart, 
those boys were right when they said 
they did not get a square deal. You 
gentlemen have prejudged that question 
to some extent, at least your Chairman 
has, by this previous action, as I have 
been advised, has absolutely passed upon 
that question; you have already deter- 
mined it and you are in the attitude of 
jidges who have acted without our ap- 
viearance before you. 


INVESTIGATION BY BOARD OF DI- 
RECTORS INTO BREACHES OF 
DISCIPLINE, FEB. 24, 1913. 


Mr. Peteet: Before we take up the 
examination of witnesses I think it is de- 
sirable to present to the Board some 
communications which I have received 
during the present school year on the 
subject of hazing and state the action 
that was taken on those communica- 
tions. 

As early as October 9, 1912, I received 
a letter from the Governor, in which he 
quoted complaints received by him on the 
subject of hazing, to this effect (read- 
ing): 

“We take the liberty to write you rela- 
tive to our sons who are freshmen at 
the A. & M. College and who have writ- 
ten us concerning the treatment they 
are receiving from the higher classmen. 

“We do not object to the boys having 
small pranks played on them, but when 
it comes to the boys being stripped of 
the'r clothing and thrown down across 
a bed and whipped on the bare rump and 
thighs with a leather strap, we think it 
is time to call a halt. One night last 
week several of the upper classmen came 
to the room where our boys were. study- 
ing and proceeded to whip them both in 
the manner stated above and for no other 
reason than they were freshmen. The 
names of these boys are * *: * 

“Will you please take the matter up 
with the Board of Regents and see that 
this does not happen any more? If it 
does, we will be compelled to take our 
boys out of school. We will, also, ask 
that you do not give the names of these 
boys so that it will reach the student 
body, for the chances are that if the up- 
per classmen learn that these boys have 
complained that they will be subjected 
to such indignities that they would both 
have to quit school. 

“Hoping that this matter will receive 
_the proper attention and that this letter 
will be received by you in the same spirit 
-that it is written, only for the good of 


the school, we are,” 

Mr. Peteet: And then the Governor 
goes on to urge efforts to put down 
hazing. 


. On October 21 I received a letter from 
Nhe Governor containing the following 
complaint (reading): 


“T have my boy at the A. & M. Col- 
lege as a freshman this year and I want 
to write you in regard to the hazing that 
is carried on there. I think it a shame 
that the freshmen have to stand the 
treatment they do at the hands of the 
older students as they have no liberties 
at all. On every Saturday and Sunday 
night they are whipped and abused in 
lots of ways; not being satisfied with 
one whipping, but every Saturday, and 
kicked and abused so much that I think 
it a shame that it is allowed. Where is 
the President? Can’t he stop all such 


26 


conduct? Now, I am told on National 
holidays the freshmen are not .to be 
caught in their room or on college ground 
after dark, but have to hike to the woods 
for the night to keep from being han- 
dled roughly by the students, no matter 
whether it is freezing or pouring rain, 
this goes on the same. I think it a dis- 
grace to the State of Texas. We do not 
send our boys and pay for this hazing, 
but we want them to get an education; 
but how can they look forward to any 
pleasure every last of the week, for they 
are looking for rough treatment they are 
to receive. 

“Now, Governor, I know you have the 
power to do and I pray that you will . 
have all this stopped at once, so our boys 
will be satisfied, is the earnest wish of 
a devoted freshman’s mother.” 

Mr. Peteet: Those complaints were 
forwarded to the President of the College 
and my information from him is to the 
effect that the ‘Discipline Committee 
made diligent inquiry, but were not able 
to locate the guilty parties, the students 
in the complaints having refused to give 
the names for fear of being ostracized 
by the other students. 

Along in October I received a commu- 
nication from Messrs. Faith & Murray of 
Runge, Texas, in behalf of Preston Tay- 
lor, asking for the return of his fees 
paid in, claiming that he was compelled 
to leave college to escape hazing. The 
rules being that a student who leaves 
college without notifying the President 
and complying with other requirements, 
is not entitled to a return of his fees, the 
request had been declined and when they 
appealed to me I wrote them that if they 
would have the young man make a state- 
ment of all the facts related to me by his 
attorneys and give the names of the 
guilty parties I would see to it that his 
fees were returned. In reply I received 
this statement: 


Runge, Texas, Nov. 27, 1912. 


Hon. Walter Peteet, 


Fort Worth, Texas. 
Dear Sir: 

In compliance with your request to 
Messrs. Faith & Murray for a statement 
of the reasons. why I left College, I wish 
to submit the following: » 

The first night I spent at the College 
there was only a few of the cadets pres- 
ent and those few were more inclined 
to inflict a few pleasant jokes. They 
slipped into.my room and slammed a 
chair upon the floor near my head which 
startled me considerably, and later in the 
night threw a large rock through the 
window, which, if it had struck me, would 
have resulted seriously. But these things 
I regarded as matters of amusement. The 
next night there was a large number af 
cadets present and J, along with other 
freshmen, was taken out of my room and 
compelled to stand up facing another 
student with our noses touching while 
we both whistled. After this we were 
made to disrobe and pillows were brought 


from the bedrooms and we were com- 
pelled to mount these pillows and imi- 
tate a couple engaged in sexual inter- 
course. The next night we were marched 
around one of the buildings several times 
' and were kept in line by a large number 
of the boys who were armed with straps, 
which they applied to anyone who failed 
to keep step. We were then ordered to 
disrobe and proceed to urinate. I very 
fortunately escaped this ordeal by slip- 
ping out of the crowd unobserved. My 
roommate advised me that a number of 
the boys were forced to expose their 
person and to use a condrum or thin rub- 
ber enclosure for the private organs of 
a male. Such conduct on the part of the 
student body aroused in me a wholesome 
disrespect for them and I felt that I 
would not be able to make any progress 
under the circumstances. During my en- 
tire life I have been impressed with the 
shame and disgrace of such conduct as 
‘I was foreed to witness during the few 
days of my stay at the College. 

I was sorry to leave the College, but 
under the circumstances I could not tol- 
erate the treatment that was _ inflicted 
upon me and would again return home 
under the same conditions. 

Very truly yours, 
PRESTON TAYLOR. 

Mr. Peteet: You will notice that: he 
still declines to give the names of the 
parties perpetrating these indignities 
upon him and we were unable to bring 
them to justice and inflict the penalty. 

I am now going to put into the record 
eight letters which contain other com- 
plaints about hazing. (These letters ap- 
pear as “Exhibit J’ to the statement of 
Prof. D. W. Spence.) 

I have received these communications: 
(Mr. Peteet here read affidavits attached 
to “Exhibit C”’ of Prof. Spence’s state- 
ment.) 

MR. PETEET: Now, gentlemen, with 
that statement as to the character and 
kind of hazing, I think it would be 
proper for the Board to inquire into what 
effort has been made on the part of the 
College authorities to suppress it, and 
now we might examine first, Professor 
D. W. Spence. 

PROF. SPENCE: ; 

MR. PETEET: You are a member of 
the Faculty at the College? 

PROF. SPENCE: Yes, sir. 

MR. PETEET: . And are Secretary of 
the Faculty? 

PROF. SPENCE: 
of the Faculty. 

MR. PETEET: And a member of the 
Discipline Committee? 

PROF. SPENCE: Member of the D'‘s- 
cipline Committee. 

MR. PETEET: ° How long- have you 
been at the College? 

PROF. SPENCE: ‘Since September, 
1892, and a member of the Faculty since 
September, 1899. 

MR. PETEET: Now, I would like for 
you to state in your owz way what effort 


Yes, sir, ‘Secretary 


has been put forth within the present 
year, we will say, to suppress hazing, 
and with what results, and what method 
of procedure the College has pursued 
when complaints of hazing reached the 
Faculty. 
PROF. SPENCE: When complaints of 
hazing reached the Faculty or the Presi- 
dent they were referred to the Discipline 
Committee for investigation. The Dis- 
cipline Committee then investigated the 
cases and reported its findings to the 
Faculty. It is extremely hard to get the 


‘boys to testify in a case of hazing. 


MR. R. L. BENNETT: The first ques- 
tion is, is it extremely hard for them 
to even report cases? 

PROF. SPENCE: :Yés) “sir> oAt- the 
first of the year it is hard for them to 
report cases because they do not know 
the names but, as stated in one of the 
affidavits, there is the further fear of 
more severe hazing or ostracism by the 
cadets in case they do report it. 

“MR. BENNETT: What is your ex- 
perience as to the resentment on the 
part of the other students toward the 
student who does report hazing—what 
is his fate? 

PROF. SPENCE: My understanding is 
that more often than otherwise he is 
hazed more severely than at first, and 
it may be also—I am not prepared to 
name any specific cases, but my under- 
standing is he is then looked on as a 
tattler by his classmates and is ostra- 
cised to an extent for that reason. 

On October 28, 1912, Cadets Wellman, 
Je Wit; Garland, Rais. Kurtz, L. Aland 
Hooks, B. L., were suspended until Sep- 
tember, 1913, for hazing. There was no 
physical violence in this case. These 
four cadets went to the basement after 
tatoo and ordered the freshman to go to 
the sink or toilet. It is what they call 
P Company, and they make the fresh- 
man elect regular officers and march 
in formation to the sink. 

MR. BENNETT: That feature of haz- 
ing is imposed on freshmen, new 
students? 

PROF. SPENCE: Yes, sir, new stu- 
dents. These were upper classmen, 
sophomores or juniors who imposed that 
punishment on certain freshmen. That 
case, as I understand it, was caught up 
with by the Commandant of Inspection 
of the dormitories after tatoo. 

On October 31, 1912, Cadet Randall, 
R. O., was dismissed for hazing. I will 
read the record in that case. The report 
of the Discipline Committee in that case 
is as follows: 

“October 30, 1912. 
“To the Faculty: 

“The Discipline Committee  investi- 
gated the case of Cadet Randall, R. O., 
charged with hazing in ordering a new 
cadet to put his nose on the table 
preparatory to being strapped on the 


streets of Dallas, and find that the new : 


cadet, Holmgreen, H. H., got off the 
train in Dallas and was told by some 


older cadets to get back on the train; 
he failed to do so, and Cadet Randall 
ordered him, Cadet Holmgreen, to get 
over the table and caught hold of Cadet 
Holmgreen and turned him around so 
as to face this table; that new Cadet 
Holmgreen expected to be strapped; that 
on the approach of the Commandant, 
Cadet Randall was warned to look out 
and remarked that he did not give a 
damn. The committee recommends that 
Cadet Randall, R. O., be dismissed.” 

MR. PETEET: What is meant by the 
term hazing? That means any indignity 
that can be practiced on under classmen 
by upper classmen—may it take any 
form? 

PROF. SPENCE:., Yes, sir; it is hard 
to define it; about the best definition 
I suppose, would be “interfering with a 
new cadet in any way, shape, form or 
fashion—” 

MR. PETEET: To his humiliation? | 

PROF. SPENCE: To molest a new 
cadet to his humiliation. 

MR, PETEET: And the object is to 
humiliate him? 

PROF. SPENCE: As stated by the 
cadets, it is to teach him his place as 
a freshman. 

MR. PETEHRT: 
one of humility? 

PROF. SPENCE: 

MR. PETEHT: 
men? 

PROF. SPENCE: § Yes, Sir. 

MR. PETEET: Would that tend to 
make better citizens? 

PROF. "SPENCE “No, sir 

On November 4th, Cadet Anderson, 
M, L., was dismissed for hazing. Those 
were the only four cases of hazing that 
were brought to the attention of the 
Discipline Committee before Christmas. 
The case of the twenty-two, the case 
known as the twenty-two investigated 
by the Discipline Committee, was report- 
ed on under date of January 21st. 

MR. PETEET: Was it your belief as 
to the number of new cadets or fresh- 
men that are hazed in the junior or 
freshman years? 

PROF. SPENCE: 
all of them are. 

_ MR. PETEET: 
opinion? 

PROF. SPENCE: It is my opinion. I 
will finish this other statement first. 


The case of the twenty-two was the 
fifth case—the fourth case and five on 
January 21st, was the fifth case. 


MR, PETEET: So, if I understand 
it, on five different occasions during the 
present school year the Faculty has been 
able to make proof of hazing and has 
dismissed students found guilty? 

PROF. SPENCE: Yes, or punished 
them, because in the first case they 
were suspended. 

MR. BENNETT: The question is as 
to the extent of the hazing applied to 
the freshmen at the entry of their year? 


That place, then, is 


Yes, sir. 
To the upper class- 


I expect practically 


It is just a matter of 


28 


PROF. SPENCE: It is my opinion, 
just in a general way, that practically 
all of the freshmen are hazed. 

MR. PETEET: You have attended 
practically all meetings of the Faculty, 
have you? 

PROF. SPENCE: Yes, sir. 

MR. PETEET: You know all mem- 
bers of the Faculty? 

PROF. SPENCE: Yes, sir. 

MR. PETEET: Do you know whether 
any member of the Faculty has sym- 
pathized with the practice of hazing? 

PROF. SPENCE: I do not, 

MR. PETEET: Has the Faculty ever, 
within your knowledge, indicated its 
approval or willingness to condone haz- 
ing? 

PROF, SPENCE: No, sir, it has not. 

MR. PETEHT: Has it ever refused to 
inflict punishment when parties were 
found guilty of hazing? 

PROF, SPENCE: It has not that I 
can recall; if it should have been the 
case it was where there were circum- 
stances or a promise to better behave 
or to put down hazing, but my recollec- 
tion is now that the Faculty has never 
at any time refused to punish hazing. 

MR. BENNETT: Why cannot the 
Faculty arrive at more instances of haz- 
ing to deal out punishment? 

PROF. SPENCE: I don’t think itis 
the duty of a professor to go around 
the dormitories as a detective and get 
these cases. We rely entirely on the 
officers and the upper classmen to keep 
order in the dormitories. And it is only 
where specific cases are reported that 
we are able to make any investigation. 

MR. BENNETT: That is to say, the 
upper classmen have the lower classmen 
in their power to haze as they might see 
fit? 

PROF. SPENCE: Yes, unless the lower 
classmen report it. 

MR. BENNETT: But you said awhile 
ago that the lower classmen would not 
report it? 

PROF. SPENCE: 

MR.. BENNETT: 
cism? — 

PROF. SPENCE: Just as you have 
the statement right there of one of them. 


MR. BENNETT: Then that estab- 
lishes the fact that the lower classmen 
are entirely within the hands of the 
upper classmen to be hazed as much as 
the upper classmen may see fit; is that 
right? _ 

PROF. SPENCE: It is right to the ex- 
tent that we depend entirely upon the 
upper classmen to maintain that order 
and if the upper classmen are going to 
permit it—I do not mean just the sopho- 
mores and juniors but the seniors also, 
all the upper classmen, including officers 
who are responsible for diseipline in the 
barracks, if they are going to permit it 
it may be done, 

MRo-PETERT: 
most hazing? 


Certainly not. 
Because of ostra- 


What class does the 


PROF. SPENCE: I should say it to be 
the juniors and sophomores. 

MR. PETEET: Well, now, explain the 
system of control for ordering discipline 
in the barracks. 

PROF. SPENCE: You have me there, 
I do not— 

MR. PETEET: We might more prop- 
erly develop that through Lieutenant 
Brown. 

PROF. SPENCE: Or even Mr. Wind- 
row, who has been through the dormi- 
tories. 

MR. PETEET: I expect we had better 
defer that until we get to Mr. Brown 
on that. 

MR. BENNETT: Who are the leaders 
in this strike, upper or lower classmen? 
PROF. SPENCE: Junior classmen. 

MR. BENNETT: The junior class is 
the one you say does the most hazing? 

PROF. SPENCE: Juniors and sopho- 
mores. Probably I ought to correct 
that statement about the junior class- 
men being leaders in the strike and 
make it juniors and sophomores because 
there were a few—for instance, we think 
there were only eight leaders, five jun- 
iors and three sophomores. 

MR. PETEET: JI have here a report 
made to me by Mr, Spence on the second 
of February covering the action of-the 
Faculty in dealing with these cases of 
hazing and insubordination. It seems 
to me that probably this might be read 
into the record and furnish a basis for 
further examination, bringing out the 
facts on disputed points, and if you 
gentlemen have read it, most of you 
have seen copies of it, I will just turn 
it over to the stenographer and let him 
put it into the record and then we will 
proceed to examine Mr. Spence on the 
disputed points. 

(Said statement was incorporated in 
the record and appears as Exhibit “A” to 
the statement of Prof. Spence elsewhere 
in this report.) : 

PROF. SPENCE: Had you better put 
in the supplemental statement, too? 

MR. PETEEHT: If you have that, give 
it to me. 

(Prof. Spence produces supplemental 
statement and same appears as Exhibit 
“B” to his statement in this report.) 


MR. BENNETT: Do you think it is 
extremely disastrous to students to re- 
port hazing in the consequences dealt 
out to them by their associates? 


PROF. SPENCE: I think he feels it 
might be. I do not recall right now 
that we have ever had a case to inves- 
tigate where a boy was punished by his 
classmen after he had made a report. 
I think he is afraid he might be, though. 


MR. PETEHT: Now, I want to ask 
you about the dismissal of the twenty- 
two students for hazing. It has been 
charged that four of those students were 
not on the campus at the time of their 
dismissal. I wish you would state the 
facts about that. 


29 


PROF. SPENCE: Would you like me 
to state the testimony against those 
four ?: 

MR. PETEET: 
action. 

PROF. SPENCE: I will need Lieuten- 
ant Brown to tell what class these men 
belong to. 

MR. PHTEET: That is a detail that 
does not matter. Just state how you 
came to dismiss them in their absence 
and what followed. I do not think you 
need to read it. Just state how it comes 
that four students were dismissed during 
their absence and what action followed. 

PROF. SPENCE: Of the twenty-two 
students dismissed January 28th for haz- 
ing on the night of December 14th, seven- 
teen pleaded guilty, five were proved 
guilty to the satisfaction of the Faculty, 
four of them were away from College 
on furlough at the time their cases were 
investigated. The facts in the case were 
as follows: One of the four returned to 
College and claimed that he could estab- 


Yes, just state the 


lish his innocence; he was re-instated 
pending further investigation. Another 
wrote that he was innocent; he was 


notified that if he would return he would 
be re-instated pending further investi- 
gation. Another returned to College, 
learned that he had been dismissed and 
left without protest. 

MR, PETEET: Did he come to the 
authorities? 

PROF. SPENCE: None that ever [I 
heard of. I understand Dr. Ellinger saw 
him. The fourth has never been heard 
from. 

MR. PETEET: Now, state what was 
your reason in taking action on their 
cases during their absence? 

.MR. BENNETT: What evidence did 
you have? 

MR. PETEEHT: AI right, let him an- 
swer this and then that. 

PROF. SPENCE: The first case men- 
tioned, the case of one who returned and 
claimed he was innocent and was al- 
lowed to remain, Cadet Bradley, L. L., 
five freshmen testified that he was in 
the party and strapped them; two juniors 
testified that he was in the party and 
that they saw him strap these freshmen; 
nobody testified that he was not there. 
The second one mentioned who wrote 
that he was innocent was notified if he 
would return he would be re-instated 
pending further investigation, was Rand- 
lett, S. L.; six cadets testified that he 
was there and strapped them and we 
went into this case further that night 
and two of these cadets were summoned 
again and testified a second time that 
he was there and strapped them. The 
testimony in the case of the other two 
was similar. The one who has not been 
heard from is Pat Williford; seven cadets 
testified that he was there, two of whom 
were juniors; one of the seven testified 
that Williford was a leader in the strap- 
ping; three of those cadets were called 
back before the committee at night and 


they testified again that he was there; 
and nobody testified that he was not 
there. In the fourth case, the case of 
Wood, B., ten cadets testified that he 
was there; one testified he thought he 
was there, and one testified positively 
that he was there and did hit him; and 
another testified that he was not only 
there and hit him but he twisted his belt 
when he hit him; three of those cadets 
were recalled at the night investigation, 
and they reiterated their testimony that 
he was there and strapped them. 

MR. PETEET: What was your pur- 
pose in dismissing them during their ab- 
sence? : 

PROF: SPENCE: The testimony was 
apparently conclusive that they were 
there. I would not like to say that I 
thought over all of this part of it before 
hand, but the testimony that they were 
there would be conclusive to my mind 
and the Faculty is not a court. 

MR. PETEET: Well, now, are all 
who wrote and protested given an oppor- 
tunity to return to College and remain 
there pending further investigation? 

PROF. SPENCE: The only one I] know 
of was Bradley, who came back and was 
told to go on with his examination. 

MR. PEL. HET: And is there now? 

PROF. SPENCE: He is out on ac- 
count of this strike now. I understand 
the mother of Cadet Randlett wrote— 
the President can tell more about that 
because that letter came to him and I 
do no know anything more about it 
except what I have heard. 

JUDGE KONE: With reference to 
Cadet Wood, he was dismissed during 
his absence? 

PROF. SPENCE: Yes, sir. 

JUDGE KONE: #£4Dismissed, as you 
say, for the reason that eleven different 
cadets testified that he was there and 
strapped them? 

PROF, SPENCE: 

JUDGH KONE: 
College? 

PROF, SPENCE: That is hearsay on 
my part; I did not see him, I do not 
know him. [ heard that he returned to 
College. 

JUDGE KONE: Was he notified that 
he could have a hearing if he desired? 

PROF, SPENCE: My understanding 
is that he did not ask that, he just heard, 
I do not know how he heard it, that 
he had been dismissed; the order had 
been read out, I suppose; and my under- 
standing is he did not interview any of 
the authorities; that is my understand- 
ing, he did not see any of the College 
authorities. 

MR. BENNETT: Eleven cadets testi- 
fied that he was present at the hazing? 

PROF, SPENCE: Eleven cadets, and 
without knowing these men I know three 
of them were juniors; these men who 
were doing the hazing themselves: 

MR. BENNETT: Eleven testified he 
was present and participated in the haz- 
ing? 


Yes, sir. 
He returned to the 


39 


PROF. SPENCE: Was present and 
participated in the hazing. 

JUDGE KONE: And upon his return 
to the College he never demanded any 
hearing? 

PROF. SPENCE: 
any hearing. 

JUDGE KONE: Now, was there a 
general order or a general understanding 
that those cadets who were testified 
against during their absence could have 
a hearing if they desired? 

PROF. SPENCE: I will not say there 
was at that time; there always is the 
statement or understanding that a man 
can bring up proof in his own favor. 

MR. BENNETT: In other words, he’ 
would be given an opportunity to refute 
the charges at any time he presented his 
evidence. 

PROF. SPENCE: Certainly. 

MR. PETEET: As Secretary of the 
Faculty you never received any commun- 
ication from Wood asking for a further 
investigation? 

PROF. SPENCE: No, sir, but that 
would not come to me as Secretary of 
the Faculty; it would go direct to the 
President. 

MR, PETERT: 
the Faculty? 

PROF, SPENCE) Oh, nos But rigat 
there, that is a matter that would 
never would go to the Faculty because 
the President would send it direct to 
the Discipline Committee. 

MR. PETEET: As a member of the 
Discipline Committee you never re- 
ceived any? 

PROF. SPENCE: It never did come 
to the Discipline Committee. 

MR. PETEET: Now, then, coming 
down to the dismissal of the students 
for insubordination. Explain what action 
was taken of all cases who asked that 
their names be included among the 
signers of the original proclamation. 

PROF. SPENCE: I will read an ex- 
tract from the Faculty minutes, Feb- 
ruary 3. 1913: 

“The Secretary stated that two pages 
of names were handed to the President 
yesterday morning with a request that 
they be added to the signatures to the 
proclamation submitted February 1. It 
was moved and carried that this matter 
be referred to the Discipline Commitee 
for recommendation.” 

Also extract from Faculty minutes, 
February 5: . 

“The Discipline Committee submitted 
the following report, which was adopted: 
The Discipline Committee recommends 
that all the signers of the additional list 
handed to the President on February 2, 
1913, such as have left the campus, be 
dismissed for deserting in sympathy with 
the insubordinate movement; that such 
cadets as remained on the campus or 
have obtained authorized furloughs be 
retained upon the rolls of the College, 
the names of such cadets to be reported 
to the Faculty later for record.” 


He did not demand 


It never came before 


Now, I would like to say right here 
that on February 12, the Commandant 
reported the names of thirty-nine men 
who deserted on February 2 in sympathy 
with the insubordinate movement. Some 
of those names were on the additional 
list and some were not, but they were 
considered by the Faculty as having de- 
serted in sympathy with the insubordi- 
nate movement and were dismissed for 
that reason, that is, were considered as 
dismissed; there was no formal action on 
that report, that report of thirty-nine 
was just so considered by the Faculty. 

MR. PETEET: As automatically dis- 
missing those under previous order? 

PROF. SPENCE: As automatically 
dismissing those, although the previous 
order only referred to the signers of the 
additional list, 

WLR, OPE THRE: | Was that, sthen. in 
effect—so that in effect the same pun- 
ishment was imposed upon the signers 
of the additional list as was imposed on 
the signers of the original proclamation? 

PROF. SPENCE: - That is, the signers 
who left the campus. 


MR, PETEET: Those who signed the 


original list were given the same oppor-: 


tunity of taking their names off by stay- 
ing on the campus as were given to the 
signers of.the additional list? 


PROF. SPENCE: Their staying on the 
campus was taken as meaning that they 
had taken their names off. Now, one 
reason for that is this: the Command- 
ant did not understand that this list had 
gone to the Secretary, and when the first 
man came in and told him he had signed 
the additional list and wanted his name 
taken off, the Commandant told him, 
“Your name is not on the list because 
that was acted on last night,’ and it 
is to be supposed that he probably kept 
somebody else from coming there and 
asking that his name be taken off 
because he understood that those who 
were on the additional list were not 
acted on. 


MR. PETEEHT: But there was no dis- 
crimination by the Faculty in punishing 
those on the additional list along with 
those on the original list? 


PROF. SPENCE: Except that those 
on the original list were dismissed for 
insubordination and those who signed 
the additional list and left the campus 
were dismissed for having deserted in 
sympathy with the insubordinate move- 
ment. E 


MR. PETEET: Now, is there any 
other fact that any other member of the 
Poard desires to illustrate by Prof. 
Spence, is there any additional statements 
tnat you care to make bearing on this 
inquiry or that would be pertinent to it? 


Prof. Spence: I would like to submit 
the following to the Board for the record 
(reading): 


31 


LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 


College Station, Texas, Feb. 22, 1913. 
To the Board of Directors, Through the 

President. 

Sirs: 

In compliance with the suggestion of 
the President of the Board, we have the 
honor to submit herewith a complete rec- 
ord of the recent disciplinary troubles 
at the Agricultural & Mechanical Col- 
lege, together with data relative to other 
matters touched upon in public discus- 
sion of conditions at the College. This 
record comprises: 

Exhibit A—Statement D. W. Spence to 
Honorable Walton Peteet, supplemental © 
statement. 


Exhibit B—Summary. 


Exhibit C—Testimony in the case of A. 
C. Eschenberg. Testimony of V. L. Rog- 
ere, a Aifidavitsy.ofaVe Lin RogerseeRasC: 
Withers, H. H. Richardson. General Or- 
der No. 77. 


Exhibit D—Answers to charges. Or- 
ganization of Corps of Cadets. Work of 
Committee on Readmission. Issues in- 
volved. 


Exhibit G—List of the facutly, 
dates of appointment. 


Exhibit H—Statement of faculty ac- 
tions concerning discipline. 


with 


Exhibit I—Statements regarding san- 
itary conditions. 


Exhibit J—Letters complaining of haz- 
ing. ‘ 

Exhibit K—Letters and telegrams con- 
cerning the recent conditions at College. 


In all decisions on questions af issue 
in the recent troubles, the Faculty: has 
acted from purely impersonal motives, 
and has endeavored to decide all ques- 
tions on the simple basis of right and 
wrong and for the good of the College, 
and. we believe that the general policy 
pursued by the Faculty in these decisions 
has been such as to conserve the best 
interests of the College. If we have 
erred, we believe that it has been on 
the side of leniency to the individual 
student. 


We wish to express our appreciation 
of the active and effective support we 
have received at your hands in this en- 
tire matter. We wish further to assure 
you that the Faculty will heartily co- 
operate with you and impartially put into 
operation any rulings or decisions which 
you may make. We believe, however, 
that it will be injurious to the discipline 
of the College to readmit the seven or 
eight leaders who may be found to have 
actively promoted the recent insubordi- 
nate movement. 


By the Faculty, 
R. T. MILNER, President. 
D. W. SPENCE, Secretary. 


EXHIBIT A. 


Statement D. W. Spence, Secretary of — 


the Faculty, to Honorable Walton Pe- 
teet, President Board of Directors, Jan- 
uary, 1913— Supplemental Statement, 
February, 1913. 


THE AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL 
COLLEGE OF TEXAS. 


College Station, Texas, Feb. 2, 1918. 
Honorable Walton Peteet, 

President Board of Directors. 
Dear Sir: 

As a member ofthe Discipline Commit- 
tee and Secretary of the Faculty, and at 
your request, I submit the following state- 
ment of the circumstances which have 
led up to the present state of affairs at 
this College. 

On January 21 the following letter, ad- 
dressed to a member of the Faculty, was 
read to the Faculty: 

“Dear Sir: 

“T have a nephew under your instruc- 
tion this term, and from reports from 
some of the young men that have been 
attending from this district I presume 
that he is having a little ‘rough road’ to 
travel in the way of passing the ‘hazing 
stage.’ This has perhaps been somewhat 
exaggerated to me; however, if not, it 
does seem that there could be some way 
to prevent such rankness among those 
boys. 

“Two of the young men from here 
failed to go back since Xmas on account 
of it. These are both good-moral boys, 
and have had quite a lot of encourage- 
ment from our school, and to have to 
submit to a ‘brutal beating’ simply be- 
cause they were not able perhaps finan- 
cially to throw in to have a Xmas tree 
for the hazers, or did not feel disposed to 
have to carry wood and water for them, 
it seems to me that it might have a 
tendency to blight this already instilled 
spirit of usefulness and progressiveness. 

“Being a native. born Texan, I feel 
deeply interested in all her branches of 
progressiveness, and the A. & M. College 
I feel much interested in, and wourd not 
like to see anything in its way, but feel 
that if there is not some steps taken to 
stop some of this rough ‘hazing’ it will 
at least retard its growth. I would like 
to have you confer with Mr. R. C. With- 
ers, who is now taking a short course 
with you as to the character of the boys 
who have failed to return, as he las had 
the pleasure of teaching some of them 
and is quite familiar with all of them. 
Mr. Withers is a farm demonstrator of 
Orange County, as you are perhaps aware. 
He will also explain to you the serious- 
ness of the manner in which the parents 
of these boys look at this matter. You 
may allow him to read this if you wish 
and have him be the judge as to the 
validity of what I have written. 


32 


‘painted out. 


“Kindly let me hear from you at some 
time when convenient. 
“Yours very truly, 
(Signed) “DR. J. P. MASTERSON.” 


“N. B.—Understand that I do not mean 
to convey to your minds that I or any one 
of the parents of the boys here feel that 
this hazing meets even partly with sym- 
pathy from any of the management of 
the College, but rather of the opinion 
that it is not known to any one of the 
Faculty. JP Mey 

It was moved and carried that this 
letter be referred to the Discipline Com- 
mittee and that committee instructed to 
investigate this case. : es, 

Upon investigation, the Discipline Com- 
mittee learned that about December 1 
a member of the freshman class painted 
“1916” on the College standpipe. That a 
few days later the Adjutant read out a 
notice in the mess hall signed ‘‘Sopho- 
more Class” to the effect that no 
freshman would be allowed to have 
any... desert. “until, this) ‘1916 swas 
That a few days later mem- 
bers of the freshman class belonging to 
“D” Company posted a notice on the 
bulletin board, ‘““No Cush, No Christmas 
Tree,’ or words to that effect. That on 
December 14 members of the sophomore 
class and a few members of the junior 
class of D Company marched the fresh- 
men of that company from the mess hall 
after supper to the fourth stoop of Fos- 
ter Hall. That these freshmen were 
there herded in one end of the hall and 
asked if they would agree to give the 
upper classmen a Christmas tree. They 
replied they would not. That each fresh- 
man was then required to step out and 
lean over the banisters. That the mem- 
bers of the upper classes then lined up 
and marched past this freshman and each 
one hit the freshman one lick with his 
doubled up belt (in one case, at least, the 
belt was twisted). The upper classmen 
then lined up on the stairs and the fresh- 
men were required to run the gauntlet 
going down stairs. The next night, a 
number of the upper classmen went into 
the room of at least one freshman, who 
was not strapped the night before, and 
strapped him. 


Seventeen (17) members of the soph- 
omore and junior classes of D Company 
pleaded guilty to the above and one mem- 
ber denied being guilty. It was proven, 
however, to ‘the satisfaction of the Dis- 
cipline Committee that this cadet was 
guilty of strapping a freshman on the 
second night. Four (4) of those charged 
with this offense were on furlough when 
the investigation was conducted. In each 
case, however, a number of freshmen tes- 
tified that these cadets were there and 
did strap them and in several cases mem- 
bers of the upper classes testified that 
these cadets were there. Two (2) of these 
cadets have since returned to College 
and claim to be able to prove they were 
not there. They are being allowed to 


stay on the campus and attend their ex- 
aminations and their cases will be fur- 
ther investigated. One of the four re- 
turned to the campus and found hé “was 
dismissed and returned to his home. ~ 

The report of the Discipline Commit- 
tee in this case is as follows: 

To the Faculty: 

The Discipline Committee report that 
they investigated the case of hazing re- 
ferred to in the letter from Dr. J. P. 
Masterson of Bessmay and referred to 
the Discipline Committee, and find: (1) 
That Cadets Baccus, HE. D.; Bradley, L. 
L.; Clark, G. .T.; Crow, F. A.; Cogdell, 
CAN FP Ords chee ar Orsy thee ite: 
Heldenfels, G. C.; Keith, H. H.; Love, 
JAW.> Nash, J: F.; Rack, Wi. €.; Rothe, 
Fone Randlett) 6. ae cilclalr aw. CO 
Taliaferro, C. L.; Thomason, J. H.; White, 
R. D.; Williford, P. J.; Wood, B.; Yeates, 
C. C., did on December 14, strap the 
freshmen of Company D for posting a 
notice on the bulletin board of Company 
D that “The freshmen would not give the 
upper classmen a Christmas tree, as their 
‘cush’ was being taken away from them 
for the placing of 1916 on the standpipe.” 

(2) That on Sunday night following, a 
party of upper classmen went to the room 
of Cadet Taylor, O. O., and strapped him, 
as he was absent from the formation the 
night before. 

(3), That Cadet Eschenburg, A. C., ad- 
mits having strapped Cadet Taylor, O. O., 
at some other time, but denies doing it on 
the night of December 15. The committee 
is of the opinion, however, that he did. 


(4) That Cadets Aldridge, EH. E.; Blan- 
chard, W. W.; Bowles, J. C.; Jones, R.; 
Ray, P. F.; Regenbrecht, F.; Rogers, 
V. L.; Royse, F. A.; Sawyer, H. A.; Sin- 
gletary,.H. H.; Taylor, O. O., were each 


given one lick by each of the cadets men- 


tioned in part 1, and then later made 
to “run the gauntlet,’ which consisted 
in the upper classmen lining up on the 
steps and the freshmen running by them, 
the upper classmen hitting such as they 
could as the freshmen ran by. 


(5) That Cadet Sherley, A. A., was 
present as a witness, took no part in the 
strapping. 

The committee recommends that Ca- 
dets Baccus, E. D.; Bradley L. L.; Clarke, 
G. Fr; Grow, i ‘Av; Cogdell, C. W.;. Kord, 
Ey ya orsyth, W. ie, “ieldentels, GC; 
Keithe He Heilovers. vce Nash? deck: 
Rack, t@_C:- Rothe, °H:-H.; Randleit, S. 
Der eSinclaireew oa CG. aliarerro, (GL 
Thomason, J. H.; White, R. D.; Williford, 
P.J.; Wood, BB. Eschenburg,-A. C., and 
Yeates, C. C., be dismissed from College 
for hazing. That Cadet Sherley, A. -A., 
be given no punishment for being a wit- 
ness. 

For the Committee, 
(Signed) LEVI G. BROWN, 
: Chairman. 

You will notice an error in (4) regard- 
ing Cadet Taylor, O. O. He was not 
strapped on Saturday night and the Fac- 
ulty so understood it. This ‘report was 


83 


adopted by the unanimous vote of the 
21 members of the Faculty present—Dr. 
M. Francis being absent—at a _ called 
meeting on January 28. 

About this same time it was reported 
to the Commandant that five certain up- 
per classmen in I Company were in the 
habit of strapping the freshmen of that 
company, This case was referred to the 
Discipline Committee by the President 
and their report, under date January 31, 
is as follows: 


To the Faculty: 


The Discipline Committee investigated 
the case of hazing in Company I referred 
to them by the President, and find that 
Cadets Butts, E. B.; Kendrick, J. M.; 
Baker, H. C.; Graham, C. H., and Schley, 
W. S., have been sending for freshmen 
to come to their rooms to be strapped, 
and strapping them, and going to the 
basement and strapping freshmen at va- 
rious times since Christmas, the last of- 
fense of which occurred on or about the 
23d or 24th of January. These cadets 
pleaded guilty to the charges. 

The committee therefore recommends 
that Cadets Butts, EH. B.; Kendrick, J. M.; 
Baker, H. C.; Graham, C. E., and Schley, 
W.S., be dismissed from the College for 
hazing. 

For the Committee, 
(Signed) LEVI G. BROWN, 
. Chairman. 

The recommendation, of the committee 
was adopted by the unanimous vote of 
the 21 members present (Professor Potts 
being absent) at a called meeting of the 
Faculty on January 31. 


At this meeting of the Faculty the 
President stated he had a petition signed 
by a large number of cadets regarding 
the discipline case acted on at the meet- 
ing on January 28. It was moved and 
carried that the President be requested 
to inform the cadets that this petition 
violates paragraph 311, page 56, of the 
Blue Book, and therefore cannot be pre- , 
sented to the Faculty. : 

At a called meeting of the Faculty at 
10:30 a. m., February 1, the President 
submitted the following proclamation 
from the junior, sophomore and freshman 
classes: 

Proclamation. 


To the Faculty: 

Whereas, We feel that the underlying 
reasons for the dismissals that have 
taken place are purely political ones; 

Whereas, We feel that the desire of 
the Faculty to create a good impression 
upon the Governor and Legislature in 
order to procure thereby an increased - 
appropriation was the cause for the dras- 
tic and unjust measures taken; 

Whereas, We who are members of the 
junior and sophomore classes are just as 
much guilty as any who were dismissed; 

Whereas, We think it was the height 
of injustice to lower, without any pre- 
vious notice or warning whatsoever the 
grades of the men who went on furlough 
during the meningitis scare; 


Whereas, Our petition to this effect 
signed by practically every member of 
the junior and sophomore classes was 
practically disregarded; 

Whereas, We who are members of the 
freshman class do deem it exceedingly un- 
just that such action should have been 
taken as was shown by General Order 
NG Cte 

Whereas, We who are members of the 
freshman class do deem it exceedingly 
unjust that any action be taken in the 
case of the painting of the 1916 on the 
standpipe, as such things have occurred 
in the past and have never before called 
up any such action; 


Whereas, We, the members of the jun- 
ior, sophomore ‘and freshman classes, 
feel that we have not been given a square 
deal in any sense of the word; 

We make the following demands un- 
conditionally: : 


(1) That all the twenty-two men men- 
tioned in General Order No. 77 be rein- 
stated in good standing and given their 
daily average as their term grades. 

(2) That every man whose grade was 
reduced, due to absence from College on 
account of the meningitis situation, have 
his grade raised to the former standard. 

(3) That no action be taken in the case 
of the painting of the 1916 on the stand- 
pipe. 

We herewith declare that if these de- 
mands are not acceded to, none of the 
undersigned men will attend any aca- 
demic duties from now until such time 
as our demands are acceded to. 


We demand that action be taken on this 
proclamation and that the result of said 
action be communicated to us by retreat 
today, February 1, 1913. 


THE JUNIOR CLASS. 
THE SOPHOMORE CLASS. 
THE FRESHMAN CLASS. 


This proclamation was signed by 466 
members of the three lower classes. 


By common consent the Faculty ig- 
nored the insulting language of this proc- 
lamation and appointed a committee con- 
sisting of the President, the Command- 
ant, Professors Puryear, Kyle, Fermier, 
Burns and the Secretary of the Faculty, 
to confer with the leaders of this move- 
ment in order to advise them of the erro- 
neousness of their assumptions and to 
give them opportunity to withdraw their 
proclamation. 


A committee consisting of Messrs. J. 
B. Crockett, S. A. McMillan and A. J. Neff 
representing the local Alumni appeared 
before this Faculty committee and offered 
to do anything they might be able to do 
toward relieving the situation and asked 
for a: statement of the facts in the sev- 
eral cases. The facts were given them. 
At a later hour this committee of the 
local Alumni reported that they had met 
with committees representing the sev- 
eral classes involved and had a full dis- 
cussion with them. 


34 


Later five members of each of the. 
three lower classes—fifteen cadets in all 
—appeared before the Faculty committee 
and President Milner read to them the 
following statement: 

College Station, Texas, Feb. 1, 1913. 
To the Members of the Junior, Sopho- 
more and Freshman Classes: 

A committee of the Faculty presents 
the following statement in regard to the 
communication presented to the Faculty 
today and signed by members of the 
classes: 

The committee replies as follows to the 
several paragraphs in your preamble: 

(1) “Whereas, We feel that the under- 
lying reasons for the dismissals that have 
taken place are purely political ones;”’ 


(2) “Whereas, We feel that the desire 
of the Faculty to create a good impres- 
sion upon the Governor and Legislature 
in order to procure thereby an increased 
appropriation was the cause for the dras- 
tic and unjust measures taken”; 

Reply—In no action has the Faculty 
been influenced by political considera- 
tions. 

(3) “Whereas, We who are members of 
the junior and sophomore classes are just 
as much guilty as any who were dis- 
missed”; 

Reply—The Faculty investigates only 
cases where specific charges are made; 
and all such cases have been investi- 
gated. 

(4) “Whereas, We think that it was 
the height of injustice to lower, without 
any previous notice or warning whatso- 
ever, the grades of the men who went 
on furlough during the meningitis scare”; 

Reply—The Faculty has taken no re- 
cent action in this matter. Heads of de- 
partments have been governed by the fol- 
lowing rule: Blue Book, paragraph 324 
(2) “In case a student is absent from 
recitation a considerable number of times, 
it shall be the duty of the instructor to 
see that the work missed is satisfactorily 
made up before the date set for the reg- 
ular examination, or he may lower the 
student’s daily average to such an extent 
as may be deemed proper by the head of 
the department.” 

(5) “Whereas, Our petition to this ef- 
fect, signed by practically every member 
of the junior and sophomore classes, was 
practically disregarded”; 

Reply—Thé Faculty declined to have 
the petition read because of the knowl- 
edge that it contained matter which vio- 
lated paragraph 311 of the Blue Book; 
which reads: “No petition concerning 
matters of discipline shall be presented 
to the Faculty except by the person or 
persons immediately concerned.” 

(6) “Whereas, We who are members 
of the freshman class do deem it exceed- 
ing unjust that such action should have 
been taken as was shown by General Or- 
der: NoodTh 

Reply—Action on which General Order 
No. 77 was based was in accordance with 
the Rules and Regulations of the College. 


“The further investigation” referred to 
was to the cases of the five men in Com- 
pany I, which were acted upon yesterday. 

(7) “Whereas, We who are members 
of the freshman class do deem it exceed- 
ingly unjust that.any action be taken in 
the case of painting of the 1916 on the 
standpipe, as such things have occurred 
in the past and have never before called 
up any such action”; 

Reply—The Faculty has taken no ac- 
tion regarding “1916” on, the standpipe. 
The Commandant has expressed his in- 
tention of having this defacement re- 
moved. 

(8) “Whereas, We, the members of the 
junior, sophomore and freshman classes 
feel that we have not been given a square 
deal in any sense of the word”; 

Reply—The Faculty is unaware of hav- 
ing taken any unjust action, and the 
Faculty committee believes that all griev- 
ances specifically mentioned are covered 
by the paragraphs above. 

It is the belief of the Faculty that your 
communication submitted this morning 
was signed by many students not in sym- 
pathy with the movement; that perhaps 
your action was taken hastily. The Fac- 
ulty, therefore, has deferred action on 
the demands made in the communication 
with the view of giving you the oppor- 
tunity of reconsidering your action in the 
matter. 


The Faculty committee then called a 
meeting of the cadets in the Assembly 
Hall and the President read to the corps 
the foregoing statement. Further remarks 
were then made by the President and the 
Commandant. The President requested 
all visitors to retire. This committee 
then retired and the meeting was turned 
over to the three classes concerned. 

I understand that Mr. R. J. Windrow, 
representing the local Alumni, then made 
a plea in behalf of the local Alumni that 
the cadets withdraw the proclamation, at 
least temporarily. 


After supper last night, Mr. W. G. Beas- 
ley, representing the lower classes, ap- 
peared before this Faculty committee and 
told them that the boys had voted to go 
home today (Feb. 2). At 7:30 this com- 
mittee reported this fact to the Faculty 
at a called meeting. 


After a full discussion of the situation 
it was moved and carried that all cadets 
whose names appear on the communica- 
tion submitted that morning be dismissed 
for insubordination. 


It was then moved and carried that 
any cadet whose name appears on the 
communication above referred to, who 
will notify the President or Commandant 
that he desires his name removed from 
the list, by retreat today (Feb. 2) will 
be allowed to do so and his name will 
not appear as having’ been dismissed 
from College. 

For your information, I hand you here- 
with a copy of a circular letter which 
the local Alumni have prepared and are 


85 


today mailing to the members of the 
Alumni Association. 

I also hand you herewith a copy of the 
circulars which are being mailed to the 
parents or guardians of the cadets who 
have been dismissed. 

Respectfully submitted, 
D. W. SPENCH, 

Secretary of the Faculty; Member of 

the Discipline Committee. 


THE AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL 
COLLEGE OF TEXAS. 


College Station, Texas, Feb. 21, 1913. 
Honorable Walton Peteet, 

President of the Board of Directors. 
Dear Sir: 

In order that you may have a complete 
record of the actions of the Faculty re- 
garding the recent disciplinary troubles 
here, I submit the following statement 
supplemental to the statement furnished 
you on February 2. 

On: February 2, two pages of names 
were handed the President with the re- 
quest that they be added to the signa- 
tures to the proclamation submitted Feb- 
ruary 1. At a subsequent meeting of the 
Faculty, it was moved and carried that 
such of the signers of the additional list 
as left the campus be dismissed for de- 
serting in sympathy with the insubordi- 
nate movement; that those who remain 
on the campus be retained on the rolls 
of the College. On February 12, the Com- 
mandant submitted a list of 39 names of 
cadets who deserted February 2. These 
were considered as having deserted in 
sympathy with the movement in accord- 
ance with the above action. Of the 466 
signatures to the original list, three were 
found to be duplicates and 52 were re- 
moved before retreat February 2. There 
were, therefore, 450 cadets dismissed 
from Collge as a result of the insubordi- 
nate movement. 

On February 3, a committee of four, 
consisting of the several Deans and the 
Commandant, was appointed to pass upon 
requests for readmission. It has been 
and is now the belief of the Faculty that 
such cadets as have directly, actively, per- 
sonally and voluntarily incited the insur- 
rection and hence have been responsible 
for the recent deplorable state of affairs 
at the College should not be readmitted. 
The leading of such a movement is be- 
yond question the greatest possible breach 
of discipline and is fraught with greater 


‘possibilities of injury to the College than 


any other offense a cadet might commit. 
If there are to be any. breaches of dis- 
cipline for which a cadet should be dis: 
missed from College, the inciting of in- 
surrection should head the list. 

The Faculty realizes that the classes 
must have committees to represent them 
and no cadet is regarded as an active 
leader simply because he is on a com- 
mittea of his class; but in a case of this 
kind it is reasonable to suppose that 
those most active in originating the move: 
ment would be named on the committees. 
For this reason, the questions of the 


causes of the movement and of its leader- 
ship were gone into thoroughly by the 
Committee on Readmission. The com- 
mittee is convinced that the direct re- 
sponsibility for the affair rests on seven 
or eight cadets. 

The Committee on Readmission was in- 
structed to exclude all who were in lead: 
ership in the movement and to require 
all whom it readmitted to sign the follow: 
ing: pledge: 

Agricultural & Mechanical College of 

Texas, College Station, Texas. 


I hereby certify that I am not in favor 
of making such demands as were pre: 
sented to the Faculty February 1, 1913. 

I promise on Honor that so long as I 
am a cadet of the A. & M. College of 
Texas, I will not engage in hazing in any 
form; I will not be a member of any 
secret student organization; I will not 
attend any meeting of any class, or of 
any club or of the corps of cadets, unless 
such meeting has been previously au- 
thorized by the President of the College. 


This committee was further instructed 
by the Faculty to admit such applicants 
as may convince the committee that they 
did not ask any one to sign the paper; 
that they did not make any talks at any 
of the meetings in favor of the demands; 
that they did not try to convince any 
one that had not already signed the pa- 
per, that he should sign it; that they 
are not in favor of presenting any such 
demands to the Faculty in the future; 
that they will not take part in any such 
movement in the future. 

The Committee on Readmission has had 
daily sittings since February 4 and has 
readmitted all who could satisfy the above 
conditions. All other applications were 
referred to the Faculty. To date 255 
cadets have been readmitted—the com: 
mittee readmitted 253 and referred five 
applications to the Faculty. Two of these 
were admitted by the Faculty—one was 
refused admission on account of his con- 
duct on the campus after he was dis- 
missed. The other two are known to 
have been leaders and the Faculty has 
tabled their applications for the present. 

Respectfully submitted, 
D. W. SPENCE, 

Secretary of the Faculty, Member of 

the Discipline Committee; Member 
of the Committee on Readmission. 


EXHIBIT B. 


Summary. 


1. No college can maintain its existence 
unless it is recognized that the students 
are subject to the constituted authorities. 
In no institution can insubordination and 
defiance of authority be tolerated. This 
applies particularly to military’ schools. 
Encouragement of insubordination is sub- 
versive of discipline. 


36 


2. It is, and has been, the fixed policy 
of the Faculty to punish every student 
who has been shown to have engaged in 
hazing. On five separate occasions dur- 
ing the current session there have been 
investigations of cases of hazing. In 
each case one or more students have been 
sent home for hazing. 

3. It is impossible to take up vague 
rumors that hazing has been going on at 
times and places not specified, when there 
is no clue that promises to lead to evi- 
dence that would bring about the dis- 
covery of the guilty parties. 

4, It is very difficult to suppress haz- 
ing entirely. The United States Govern- 
ment, with its vast powers and resources, 
has been unable to stamp it out at West 
Point and Annapolis. 


5. Of the twenty-two students dismissed 
January 28 for hazing on the night of 
December 14, seventeen pleaded guilty, 
five were proved guilty to the satisfaction 
of the Faculty. 

Four of them were away from College 
on furlough at the time their cases were 
investigated. The facts in this connection 
are as follows: 

One of the four returned to College 
and claimed that he could establish his 
innocence. He was reinstated, pending 
further investigation. 

Another wrote that he was innocent. 
He was notified that if he would return, 
he would be reinstated, pending further 
investigation. 

Another returned to Colless! learned 
that he had been dismissed, and left with- 
out protest. 

The fourth has never been heard from. 

6. Upon the dismissal of these twenty- 
two cadets, a large number of students 
presented to the Faculty a petition that 
the twenty-two be reinstated. The read- 
ing of this petition to the Faculty pro- 
ceeded far enough to show that its sub- 
mission was a violation of a regulation 
which reads: 

“No petition concerning matters of dis- 
cipline shall be presented to the Faculty 
except by the person or persons imme- 
diately concerned.” 

The petition was not read further. This 
regulation is’ based on practical expe- 
rience. Before its enactment it frequently 
happened that when a student was dis- 
missed, his classmates or others presented 
a petition for his reinstatement. 

The result was that if the Faculty de- 
nied the petition, the signers of the peti- 
tion were antagonized. It should be un- 
derstood that any student or students 
who have been disciplined always have 
the privilege of petitioning on their own 
cases, but not in case of others. This is 
the extent to which the right of petition 
has been abridged. 

When a student enters the College he 
subjects himself to the authorities and 
he has not all the rights of a citizen. 

7. When the students were informed 
that, under the regulations, the Faculty 
could not consider this petition, they pre- 


sented to the Faculty an unconditional 
demand that the twenty-two dismissed 
students be reinstated, and declared that 
they would attend no further academic 
duties until their demand should be com- 
plied with. 

8. The Faculty, in the belief that many 
of the students who subscribed to this 
demand had acted hastily, prepared a for- 
mal answer in the attempt to point out 
to them the erroneous assumptions on 
which their demands were based. The 
Faculty further gave them ample time to 
reconsider and the President of the Col- 
lege urged them to consider carefully 
what they were doing. The students de- 
clined to reconsider and by their repre- 
sentative, notified the Faculty of their 
intention to leave College. 

9. By signing the preemptory demand 
the students involved had placed them- 
selves in a state of insubordination and 
of defiance of authority. They could not 
escape the consequences by announcing 
their intentions to leave. Under the rules 
no student has the right to resign with- 
out the written consent of his parent or 
guardian, and his resignation cannot be 
accepted when he is under charges. The 
Faculty voted to dismiss them. The or- 
der of dismissal was accompanied by an 
announcement that if any student should, 
during the day, express to the President 
or to the Commandant his desire to have 
his name removed from the list of sign- 
ers of the demand, his name would not 
appear in the list of those dismissed. 

10. Much has been said about the low- 
ering of grades of students on account 
of absence from College. No special 
action was taken by the Faculty on this 
matter. The matter comes under the 
ordinary rules. Not to take absences 
into account and to give full credit for 
work not fully done would be to falsify 
the record. Under the rules a student 
who has been absent a considerable num- 
ber of times must make up the work 
missed or his grade will be lowered in 
proportion to the length of time he was 
absent. Substantially the same rule is 
in effect at the University of Texas. 

11. The trivial incident of the painting 
of 1916 on the standpipe has been given 
undue weight. No student was dismissed 
for that offense. 


12. The authorities of the College have 
expressed their willingness to readmit 
students who will return with the deter- 
mination to abide by the rules and who 
will take a certain reasonable pledge as 
to their future conduct. There is noth- 
ing humiliating in the terms of readmis- 
sion. Upon the question of readmit- 
ting the active leaders in the insubordi- 
nate movement (some seven or eight, 
so far as known), there is room for dif- 
ference of opinion. The Faculty has so 
far not seen its way clear to include 
them in the general amnesty. 

13. The government of the College is 
not harsh. In a military school there 
are many regulations of the details of 


3T 


personal conduct which are not found 
in other schools. This is an essential fea- 
ture of the military system. Such regu- 
lations are based on practical experience 
and are not arbitrary. There is a reason 
for every one of them. 

14. The Faculty is determined to tol- 
erate neither hazing nor insubordination. 
Outside interference with its actions in 
these matters will make proper discipline 
a matter of impossibilty. 


EXHIBIT C. 


Testimony in the Case of A. C. Eschen- 
berg—Testimony of V. L. Rogers—Affi- 
davit of V. L. Rogers—Affidavit of R. 
C. Withers—Affidavit of H. H. Rich- 
ardson. 


Case of Eschenberg, Who Was Dismissed 
for Hazing. 


Cadet Eschenberg was in Bryan on the 
night of December 14, and was absent 
from the strapping of freshmen on that 
night. : | 

He was in a party that strapped Cadet 
Taylor, O. O., on December 15, because 
Cadet Taylor was absent from the strap- 
ping party on December 14. Cadet Taylor 
testified that he knew Cadet Eschenberg 
well and was positive that Eschenberg 
strapped him on the night of Decem- 
ber 15. 

Cadet Bosque, R. E., testified that he 
knew Cadet Eschenberg well and that 
he was positive that Eschenberg strap- 
ped Taylor on the night of December 15. 

Cadet Hschenberg testified that he was 
almost positive that he had not strapped 
Cadet Taylor on the night of December 
15, but added that he had strapped Cadet 
Taylor at some other time than that 
night. 

The committee was of the opinion that 
Cadet Eschenberg did strap Cadet Tay- 
lor On the night of December 15, and so 
reported to the Faculty. 

Extracts from the testimony in hazing 
case on December 14, 1912, when upper 
classmen of Compauy “D” strapped the 
freshmen of that company: 

Cadet Rogers, V. L., testified that he 
had blue spots on him after the strap- 
ping; that Williford, (P. Je hit) as hard 
as he could; that Bill Wood twisted his 
belt when he struck a freshman. 

College Station, Texas, Feb. 20, 1913. 

My name is Victor Lee Rogers, and I 
am 19 years of age. I came to the Agri- 
cultural & Mechanical College of Texas 
from my home at Aldridge, Jasper County, 
Texas, at the beginning of school in Sep- 
tember. Three other boys from the same 
county, Sterling Charlie Woods, Richard 
Jones and Haller H. Richardson, came 
with me. Of that number only Jones 
and myself are now students of the A. & 
M. College, Richardson having refused 
to remain in the College on account of 
the severity of the hazing, and Woods 


being restrained from returning by his 
father for the same reason. 

I was hazed frequently soon after I 
entered school, but this was not so severe 
as the hazing inflicted on me _ shortly 
before the Christmas holidays. Just 
about two weeks before school closed for 
the Christmas holidays, sophomores and 
some juniors of Company D served no- 
tice on us “fish” that we would each 
have to give them 50 cents for a Christ- 
mas feed. The freshmen refused to ac- 
cede to their demands, and the second 
night after this refusal sixteen or eight- 
een members of the two upper classes, 
I am not positive as to the exact num- 
ber, ordered us to go to the fourth stoop 
of the Foster Hall. There were about 
seventeen of us freshmen. We were 
then lined up against the wall and one 
by one ordered to lean over the banis- 
ters of the stair steps. Our coats were 
rolled up and each of the upper, class- 
men struck us twice across the back with 
their belts, the regulation army belt. 


Most of the upper classmen doubled 
their belts and one of the number twisted 
his. They started to hit us three times 
apiece, but some of the hazers protested, 
saying that their arms were tired. 


When they had finished with us there 
we were told to go to our rooms. The 
upper classmen_ stationed themselves 
along the stairs and we were forced to 
run the gauntlet, being struck by each 
one of the higher classmen as we passed. 

I examined my body immediately 
after I got in my room and there were 
great whelps across my back. For a 
number of days my back was covered 
with big blue spots and was sore. 

Sterling Woods, my roommate, knew 
that we were to be strapped and put on 
three pairs of drawers, and as a result 
did not suffer so much as I at the hands 
of the hazers. 

We made no complaint to the College 
authorities, because we felt sure that if 
we should report the upper classmen that 
we would be forced to leave school. 

However, I wrote my uncle, Dr. J. P. 
Masterson, of Bessmay, and told him 
‘about it. I also wrote A. D. Rawlinson, 
Superintendent of the Public Schools at 
Jasper, and told him about the affair. 
They both took the matter up with 
President Milner and immediately after 
Christmas I was called before the Discip- 
line Committee, before whom I made a 
statement covering the entire matter. 

We had no steam heat in Foster Hall 
and during the cold weather the fresh- 
men were compelled to carry wood and 
water for the upper classmen. At the 
first of the year we were compelled also 
to carry their trunks to their rooms for 
them, 

VICTOR LEE ROGERS. 
State of Texas, 
County of Brazos: 

Before me, the undersigned authority, 
on this day personally appeared Victor 
Lee Rogers, well known to me to be the 


person whose name .-is signed to the 
foregoing statement, who being by me 
duly sworn, on oath deposes and says 
that he signed the said foregoing state- 
ment and that the said foregoing state- 
ment is true and correct. 

Given under my hand and seal of office 
this 20th day of February, A. D. 1913. 

(SEAL) A. B. WILCOX, 

Notary Public in and for Brazos 
County, Texas. 
Headquarters Corps of Cadets, 
Agricultural & Mechanical College of 
Texas. 

College Station, Texas, Jan. 29, 1913. 
General Orders No. 77. 

The following action of the Faculty is 
published for the information of all con- 
cerned: 

1. Cadets Baccus, H, D.; Bradley, L. L.; 
Clark, G. T.; Crow, F. A.; Cogdell, C. W.; 
Ford, EH. R.: Forsyth, W. Res Heldenfels, 
G,.G.s ‘Keith, H. Hs sbove,: Jo Wie Nash: 
J.oF. (Rack,,HS-C.7 Rothe, Hale akanc 
lett, S. L.; Sinelair,,W. C.; Taliaferro, 
C. Li: | Thomasen).-J.. H.; . Whites Ds 
Williford, P. J.; Wood, B.; Eschenberg, 
A. C., and Yeates, C. C., having been 
found guilty of hazing, are dismissed 
from the College. 

2. That the student body be notified 
that further investigations are being 
made. 

By order of the Commandant. 

CADET CAPTAIN AND ADJUTANT. 

A true copy. 


LEVI G. BROWN. 
State of Texas, 
County of Jasper: 

Know All Men by These Presents, That 
I, R. C. Withers, of Buna, Jasper County, 
Texas, do hereby certify and affirm that 
I was at College Station, Texas, in Jan- 
uary, 1913; and that on Sunday, January 
12, 1913, that I, in company with some 
others, was walking across the A. & M. 
College grounds, and. that I saw about 
one hundred or more of the A. & M. stu- 
dents bring two students out of Ross 
Hall, and while four or five held the two 
students, the other hundred or more 
whipped them with their leather belts in 
a very severe manner. From every ap- 
pearance, that is, the wielding of the 
belts and the sound of the licks, the re- 
ceiver suffered from the punishment. 
Each of the hundred or more must have 
struck each of the two boys from two to 
six times. This happened in front of 
Ross Hall, on the main parade road or 
street running from the chapel to the 
dining hall. The crowd of students went 
to the Mitchell Hall next and took a 
student from that hall, dealing in a like 
manner with him. With no ill feeling to 
anyone, but with the hope that this will . 
be of some small assistance in bettering 
one of our most important educational in- 
stitutions, I make this affidavit. 

Witness my hand at Buna, Jasper 
County, Texas, this 22d day of February, 
A.D, 1912; 

R. C. WITHERS. 


Before me, D. E. Gunter, a Notary Pub- 
lic of Jasper County, Texas, appeared 
R. C. Withers, and swore that he made 
the above statement, and that it is true 
to the best of his knowledge and under- 
standing. 


Witness my hand and seal this Feb. 
Seoul 1 niga: 


- (SEAL) D. EK. GUNTER, 


Notary Public. 
Spurger, Texas, Feb. 21, 1913. 
To Mr. Ike Ashburn, or Whom It May 


Concern: 


I, Haller H. Richardson, hereby certify 
that the following is a true and correct 
statement of facts, as to treatment re- 
ceived by me while in attendance at the 
A. & M. College of Texas during the fall 
term of 1912: 


First, I entered the A. & M. in good 
faith, intending to put in a full year of 
good earnest work, but was absolutely 
forced out by the almost inhuman treat- 
ment received at the hands of the soph- 
omore class of’the A. & M. 


Shortly after the opening of school in 
September, I was visited by twelve to 
fifteen boys of the sophomore class and 
forced to prostrate myself across my 
study table and each member of the 
party proceeded to strap me with the 
regulation leather belt worn by the boys 
of the school. When asked as to my of- 
fense, I was told that ‘‘General Principle” 
was all. 


I was strapped five times during my 
three months’ stay at the school, some 
time on “General Principles” and some- 
times for refusing to do menial service 
for the upper classmen. 


The last whipping given me was the 
most severe. I was strapped with the 
regulation belts doubled and was Dlis- 
tered across the rear of my hips, a blis- 
ter four inches long by three inches 
broad—a clear blister and a very painful 
wound. I had not noticed any visible 
wounds before this. This whipping was 
given because of my refusal to help give 
a Christmas tree to the sophomores. 


On rainy or cold evenings, the freshmen 
class was always ordered to Ross Hall, 
where the roll was called, and the mem- 
bers of the freshman class given jobs 
of bringing up wood and water for the 
sophomores. Refusal to comply always 
brought a strapping to the boy who re- 
fused. 


My treatment was no more severe than 
that given other members of my class. 
In fact, one of my acquaintances, Sterl- 
ing C. Wood, was much more severe 
than that given me, he being strapped 
on one occasion with a heavy cartridge 
belt. 


I would have been strapped more than 


I did, but managed to evade my torment- 
ors on several occasions. 


(Signed) HALLER H, RICHARDSON. 


Subscribed and sworn to before me 
this the 21st day of February, 1913. 
(SHAL) D. B. JORDAN, 
J. P. and Notary Public in and for 
Tyler County, Texas. 


EXHIBIT D. 


Answers to Charges—Organization of the 
Corps of Cadets—Work of Committee 
on Readmission—lIssue Involved. 


_It is charged that the Faculty was in- 
fluenced by political considerations in 
expelling twenty-seven students for haz- 
ing. 

This is absolutely false. No action of 
the Faculty has at any time been influ- 
enced by such considerations. 

The twenty-seven students were dis- 
missed for the reason that they had 
been guilty of hazing and for no other 
reason. 

The Faculty is charged with laxity in 
matters of discipline, and when it en- 
forces the rules it is charged with being 
severe and with acting from improper 
motives. 

It is alleged that the Faculty has sup- 
pressed material facts. This is absolutely 
false. No facts have been suppressed. 

It is alleged in particular that the Fac- 
ulty suppressed the fact hat the boys 
proposed to secure a pledge from the 
boys to join in putting down hazing. No 
such proposition was made to the Fac- 
ulty. 

The students of the College are under 
military discipline. The corps of cadets 
is organized as a regiment, consisting 
of three battalions. The commissioned 
officers are members of the senior class. 
The non-commissioned officers are mem- 
bers of the junior and sophomore classes. 
Sentinel duty is performed by privates. 
All cadet officers are responsible directly 
to the Commandant for the proper per- 
formance of their duties. Violations of 
the regulations are reported by cadet of- 
ficers to the Commandant. 

The duty of the Faculty Committee on 
Discipline is ‘to investigate fully all 
cases of disorder when requested to do 
so by the President, the Dean or Faculty, 
and to make such recommendations as 
they may deem advisable.” 

Minor infractions of the regulations are 
punished by the Commandant. Serious 
cases are investigated by the Faculty 
Committee on Discipline, and the findings 
of the committee are reported to. the 
Faculty. The Faculty then assesses such 
punishment as the facts seem to demand. 


The Faculty is not a court. It does 
not try criminals. In all cases of discip- 
line it endeavors to get at the facts and 
to act upon them in a spirit of fairness 
and justice. It is not harsh in its de- 
cisions. 

It is neither practicable nor desirable 
to have members of the Faculty go 


through the dormitories spying on stu- 
dents and looking for cases of disorder. 
Such conduct would be intolerable both 
to students and professors. The main 
business of professors is teaching. Men 
qualified to fill the position of professor 
will not consent to take on also the duties 
of the policeman. The attempt to re- 
quire this of them would soon lead to 
the employment of a third-rate teaching 
staff. 

The Committee on Readmission framed 
a typewritten list of questions, which 
were asked of all applicants. This list 
is as follows: 

Were you present at any of the meet- 
ings in ‘the chapel with reference to this 
so-called strike? , 

Did you make any speech at any of 
these meetings in favor of or against 
this so-called strike? 

Did you ask anyone to sign that so- 
called proclamation? 


Did you argue with anyone in favor of 
his signing that so-called proclamation? 

Are you in favor of presenting such 
demands to the Faculty in the future? 

Do you promise that you will not take 
part in any such movement in the future? 

Do you promise that you will not en- 
gage in hazing in the future? 

Do you promise that you will not en- 
courage it by your presence? 

Do you promise that you will do all in 
your power to put down hazing? 


All applicants were asked these ques- 
tions. Some boys are diffident, timid 
and easily embarrassed. Such students 
were asked only the formal questions. 
Others are more self-possessed and more 
fluent. In such cases impromptu ques- 
tions were asked with a view of getting 
at the essential facts. The committee de- 
sired to ascertain who were the active 
leaders and what were the causes of 
discontentment among the students. It is 
not true that the questions were milder at 
any time on account of the presence of 
visitors. : 

The process of readmission was in no 
sense humiliating. It would have been 
absurd for the committee to have made 
no attempt, after so grave a breach of 
discipline, to do all it could to get light 
on the facts in the case. 

After all is said, there is but one issue 
involved in the present controversy, and 
that issue is simple and clear cut. It is: 
Shall the Faculty and Board of Directors 
of the College be sustained or repudiated 
for upholding the rule against hazing 
and for punishing insubordination? The 
mere recital of the fact will show this. 

On January 28, twenty-two cadets were 
dismissed for hazing. 

On February 1, 466 students signed a 
peremptory demand that the Faculty re- 
instate the twenty-two who had been dis- 
missed. 

That was the issue presented and the 
Faculty and Board have met it with the 
answer that the Faculty and Board, and 
not the students, are the governing au- 


40 


thority at the Agricultural & Mechanical 
College and that hazing and insubordina- 
tion will not be tolerated. If those who 
are now trying to induce the Legislature 
to condemn the Faculty and the Board 
for their action succeed in their efforts 
they will have destroyed. all discipline, 
and this generation will not witness the 
recovery of a great college from the 
baneful effects of such action. 

There is no middle ground and no 
amount of artful special pleading can 
confuse the issue. Hither the Faculty 
and the Board must be sustained or they 
must be rebuked. If they are rebuked, 
it will be notice to the world that the 
Agricultural & Mechanical College of 
Texas is a place where the students gov- 
ern the Faculty and where discipline is 
unknown. 


On this issue the Faculty and Board 
of Directors will rest their case with the 
Legislature and the people of Texas. 


EXHIBIT G: 


List of the Faculty with Dates of Ap- 
pointment. 


Date of 

Name— Employment. 
Re Des Milne renee at ee A! ee eee 1908 
Charles: Puryear..5.0 4. 1889 
M: Francis (2b vette ee 1888 
Si J FPountaine S22. ee ee ee 1912 
J, C. Nagle cx iit 24e8 2. eee 1890 
D. W. Spence (member of Faculty 

1899) aes ee ee ee eens 1892 
Bi 3. KY 1@ vc pee eee ae 1902 
C. P. Fountain (member of Fac- 

UIty 1903). ee ee eee 1900 
OZ NM. Bali eee eee eee 1903 
J 6G, Blake ee ee ee ee ee 1906 
Erg Mer imilere re ure eee ee 1906 
Owls Chastain ye. co ote es ce eee 1908 
J iB DASTCY 2 an ee ee ee ee 1908 
BOLT BROWN ee Oe tee hae ee ae ees 1909 
WilmonsNe well ee eee eee 1909 
LPG BIO Wek re eee toe ee a leer 1912 
J COP MOPS AT Bee eee ee eee ee 1912 


J.C. Burns (member Faculty 1907).. 1904 
W. T. Wright (member of Faculty 
1912) 19 
R. F. Smith (member of Faculty 
1907) 
J. W. Ridgway (member of Faculty 
1911) 
A. Mitchell 
1912) 1902 
R. J. Potts (member of Faculty 1912) 1907 


(member of Faculty 


EXHIBIT H. 


Statement of Faculty Actions Concerning 
Discipline. 


Record of Discipline Cases Since April, 
1908—Faculty Minutes, Volume 4. 
1908— 


3. April 7. Absent from class April 1. 
Nine-tenths of corps. 10 demer- 
its against each. 

5. April 22. Excess of demerits. One. 
Notified that. he j;would be re- 
quired to withdraw from College 
if his conduct was not entirely sat- 
isfactory. 

6. April 28. Absence from*classes and 
false excuses therefor. One. Re- 
quired to withdraw from College. 

June 8. Excess of demerits. One. 
Required to withdraw from Col- 
lege. 

Sept. 8. Hazing by throwing water 
on freshmen and other similar 
pranks. Highteen. 60 demerits. 

Sept. 8. Neglect of duty as a sen- 
tinel. One. Required to withdraw. 

Oct. 21. Insubordination and disre- 
spect to a cadet officer on duty 
and false statement to Discipline 
Committee. One. Required to 
withdraw. 

Oct. 21. —Going to Bryan without 
permit and attempting to desert. 
One. 60 demerits. 

Nov.. 2. Putting ink solution con- 
taining acid on sleeping  fresh- 
men’s faces by mistake. Five. 60 
demerits. (Reason for leniency 
given in minutes.) 

Nov. 11. Cutting university student 
in Houston at football game. One. 
Required to withdraw. 

Nov. 11. Attempting to use a knife 
in fight at Houston game. One. 
Debarred from attending or par- 
ticipating ‘in athletic games for 
session. . 

Nov. 24. Continuel absence without 
leave and neglect of work. One. 
Dismissed. 

Dec. 8. Throwing an eraser into 
class room and making false state- 
ment concerning same. One. Con- 
fined to campus and put on pro- 
bation. 


16. 
39. 


40. 
46. 


46. 


50. 


53. 


53. 


59. 


62.' 


1909-- 
79. Jan. 30. False report to sentinel and 
forging a telegram from his father. 
One. Dismissed. 


799. Jan. 30. Excess of demerits. One. 
Required to withdraw from Col- 
lege. 

81. Feb. 2. Excess of demerits and in- 
subordinate conduct towards Dis- 
cipline Committee. One. Dis- 
missed. / 

Feb. 2. Repentant cadet who had 
been dismissed for cheating on ex- 
amination previous year reinstated. 
He made a good record thereafter. 

Feb. 9. Hazing. Five. See full state- 
ment of action. 

Feb. 16. Cheating on examination. 
Two. Required to withdraw. 

March 3. Excess of demerits. One. 
Reduced to ranks and put on pro- 
bation. 

March 3. Excess of demerits. 
Put on probation. 


82. 


83. 


86. 


89. 


89. Four. 


41 


99. March 23. Excess of demerits. One. 
Placed on probation. 

105. April 13. Destroying property, ex- 
cess of demerits, false statement 
to committee. One. Required to 
withdraw. 

115. May 11. Excess of demerits. Two. 
Placed on probation: 

119. May 19. Excess of demerits. Three. 

Placed on probation. 

124. May 25. Excess of demerits and go- 
ing to Bryan without furlough. 
One. Required to withdraw. 

126. May 28. Stealing and lying. One. 
Dismissed. 

159. Sept. 28. Getting money by fraud, 
One. Dismissed. 

176. Nov. 23. Excess of demerits. Five. 

; Placed on probation. 

188. Dee. 7. Excess of demerits. Two. 
Placed on probation. 

192. Dec. 14. Cheating in shop work, 
stealing and false statements. One. 
Dismissed. 

193. Dec. 14. Violating probation. One. 
Required to withdraw. 

193. Dec. 14. Excess of demerits. One. 
Placed on probation. 

208. Jan. 25. Copying an essay in Eng- 
lish. One. Reduced’ from Ser- 
geant to private. 

1910— ‘ 

215. Feb. 11. Taking other cadets’ 
clothes from laundry. One. Re- 
quired to withdraw. 

218. Feb. 23. Violating probation. One. 
Required to withdraw. 

225. March 8. Excess of demerits. Three. 
Placed on probation. 

242. April 26. Excess of demerits. Two. 
Rlaced on probation. 

246. May 10. Violating probation. One. 
Suspended for remainder of ses- 
sion, 

246. May 10. Excess of demerits. One. 
Placed on probation. 

247. May 18. Going to Bryan during call 
to quarters at night. One. Sus- 
pended for remainder of session. 

247. May 13. Refusing to report absence 
of tent mate to sentinel. One. 
Suspended for remainder of ses- 
sion. 

248. May 16. Two cadets suspended on 
May 13, readmitted on their own 
petition and also a pledge signed 
by 250 freshmen and sophomores 
to quit going to Bryan without 
permit. 

250. May 22. Abusing a cadet who had 
been doing sentinel duty. One. 
Dismissed. 

251. May 24. Excess of demerits. Five. 
Placed on probation. 

251. May 24. Disturbance after taps and 
disrespect toward cadet officers. 
Six. Placed on probation. 

263. June ll. Violating probation and de- 
sertion. One. Dismissed. 

277. Oct. 20. Hazing by placing burning 


sulphur near a sleeping cadet, re- 
sulting in seriously burning the lat- 
ter. One. Dismissed. 


Nov. 1. Refusing to wear uniforms 
and do duty as cadets on trip of 
corps to Dallas. Four. Suspended 
till end of session. 

. Nov. 1. Overstaying permits and 
leaving regular companies. Three. 
One suspended; two reduced to 
privates. 

Nov. 8. On petition of four men sus- 
pended November 1 (p. 280) and 
also a petition to the President, 
signed by the senior class, suspen- 
sion of the four men was short- 
ened to one month. 

2. Nov. 29. Going to Bryan without 
permit. Eleven. Confined to cam- 

‘pus until February 1. 

. Nov. 29. Excess of demerits. 
Placed on probation. 

. Dec. 6. Excess of demerits. Twelve. 
Placed on probation and two of 
them reduced to privates. 

. Dec. 6. Desertion. Two. Dropped 
from rolls and not allowed to re- 
turn without permission from the 
Faculty. 

. Dec. 20. Getting into class room and 
examining grade book without au- 
thority. One. Confined to cam- 
pus. 

. Dec. 21. Violating probation. Three. 
One required to withdraw from 
college. 

3. Dec. 21. Desertion. Two. Dropped 
from roll and not allowed to re- 
enter without permission from 
Faculty. 

$03.. Dee. 2: 

without permit. 
withdraw. 

1911— 

303. Jan. 6. One of.the deserters drop- 
ped from roll December 21 was 
allowed to re-enter College and 
was confined to campus. 

. Jan. 17. Desertion. Two. Dropped 
from rolls and not allowed to re- 
enter without permission from 
Faculty. 

. Jan. 31. Improper language to sen- 
tinel on duty. One. Placed on 
probation. 

. Jan. 31. Violating probation. 
Suspended. 

. Feb. 3. Violating probation and 
drunkenness. One. Required to 
withdraw from College. 

. Feb. 3. Improper conduct in Bryan. 
Three. Confined to campus. 

. Feb. 7. Excess of demerits. Seven. 
Placed on probation. 

. Feb. 24. Hazing. Five juniors. Two 
suspended. One expelled and two 
reduced to privates and confined to 
campus. 

. March 2. 


280. 


287. 


One. 


Going to Bryan at night 
One. Required to 


One. 


Excess of demerits. Thir- 
teen. Placed on probation. 


March 2. Three cadets suspended on 
February 24 for hazing reinstated 
on pledge of junior class to stop 
hazing. They were reduced to pri- 
vates and confined to the campus, 
and one was also put on probation. 


334, 


March 21. Desertion. One. Dropped 
from roll and not allowed to re- 
enter without permission of Fac- 
ulty. “att 

. March 22. Violating probation. One. 
Required to withdraw. 

March 22. False report to sentinel. 
One. Placed on probation and con- 
fined to campus. 

. March 28. Forging a telegram to 
deceive Commandant. One. Dis- 
missed. 

. March 28. Going to Bryan at night 
without permit. One. Suspended. 

. April 13. Violating probation. One. 
Required to withdraw. 

. April 13. Going to Bryan without 
permit. One. Placed on proba- 
tion and confined to campus. 

. April 13. Excess of demerits. 
Placed on probation. 

. April 25. Disobedience of orders, 
violating probation and absence 
from classes. One. Required to 
withdraw. 

April 25. Excess of demerits. Two.. 
Placed on probation. 

May 2. Misconduct and disrespect 
to an officer of the College. One. 
Confined to campus and placed on 
probation. 

May 16. Hitting sentinel in head 
with stone. One. Dismissed. 

May 16. False statements in writing 
to the Commandant and to the 
Discipline Committee. One. Re- 
quired to withdraw. 

. May 238. Excess of demerits. 
Placed on probation. 

. June 2. Hazing. Five. Dismissed. 

. June 2. Refusing to give informa: 
tion that did not incriminate him- 
self. One. Required to withdraw. 

. Sept. 16. Petition of five ex-cadets, 
dismissed on June 2 for hazing, 
that they be allowed to re-enter. 
Denied. 

3. Oct. 19. Theft. One. Dismissed. 
Request for reinstatement denied 

(p. 6). 

8. Oct. 26. Cheating in writing recita- 
tion. One. Required to withdraw. 

Nov. 16. Losing gun on Houston trip 
through wilful delay and negli- 
gence. One. Suspended till begin- 
ning of spring term and put on 
probation in case of return. 

Going to Bryan at night without per- 
mit. One. Suspended until begin- 

a ning of fall term examinations. 
912— 


43. March 5. Remaining in Bryan until 
after theater without permit. Two. 
Confined to campus and put on 
probation till June 8. See page 86. 

Interfering with electric light sys- 
tem. One. Same punishment. 


55. March 25. Going to Navasota on per- 
mit to visit Bryan. Four. Sus- 
pended till ,April 12 and upon re- 
turn put on probation and confined 
to campus till June 8. One reduced 
to ranks (p. 86). 


344, 


344, 


One. 


356. 


358. 


366. 
366. 


Ten. 


22. 


69. May 7. Going to Bryan without per- 
mit. One. Suspended for rest of 
session. ; 

Excess of demerits. One. Permitted 
to resign and not allowed to re- 
enter without consent of Faculty. 

81. Drinking. Twenty-six. Two reduced 
to ranks and put on probation and 
confined to campus till June 8. 
One confined to limits of campus 
three months, exclusive of vaca- 
tion. Twenty-three given 15 de- 
merits each. 

126. Oct. 24. Hazing. Five. Four sus- 
pended till September, 1913. One 
case postponed for further inves- 
tigation. 

Excess of demerits. One. Put on 
probation until Xmas holidays. 

128. Oct. 31. Hazing. One. Dismissed. 

129. Nov. 4. Hazing. One. (Postponed 
case.) Dismissed for petition. (See 


p. 183:) 
1913— 
151. Jan. 15. Committee to report on 
hazing. 
152. Jan. 28. Hazing. Twenty-two. Dis- 
missed. 
153. Jan. 31. Hazing. Five. Dismissed. 
EXHIBIT I. . 
Statements Regarding Sanitary Condi- 


tion, 


College Station, Texas, Feb. 19, 19138. 
Col. R. T. Milner, 

President A. & M. College. 
Sir: 

In reply to the request for a report 
of. the health and sanitary condition of 
the Agricultural & Mechanical College, I 
beg to submit the following: 

Since the reopening of the College, Jan- 
uary 4, up to February 18, a period of 47 
days, the medical department issued a 
total of 619 excuses for all causes; 190 
of these were excused from class work. 
The average total excuses were 13 per 
day and of these 3 per day were excused 
from class work. 


During this time we had two cases of 
meningitis and five cases of measles and 
other contagious diseases brought in by 
the cadets. A big per cent of the 3 per 
day excused from class work was for 
contagious diseases and patients held in 
quarantine. During this period we have 
nearly 400 cadets and meningo-vaccine 
which was responsible for a large per 
cent of the 10 per day being excused from 
military and minor duties. 

From the above it will be seen that 
the health or the cadet corps has been 
excellent, as the average barrack system 
has more than double this amount. 

The building we have for a hospital 
is inadequate and not in good condition. 
The campus generally is very much torn 
up by the heavy traffic caused by the 
buildings under construction and the re- 
cently finished tunnel. The making of 
artificial stone on the campus and bad 


43 


roads and walks make the campus un- 
sightly but not necessarily unsanitary. 


The dormitories as a rule are well kept - 


and each student is responsible for his 
room, the janitors keep the halls. For 
the past eighteen days the dormitories 
have not been in order, caused by 500 
cadets leaving the College and scattering 
refuse articles. The conditions are now 
rapidly returning to normal. 

Last session our total expense was 861% 
cents per student per month for physi- 
cian, drugs, nurses and all hospital ex- 
penses, including the mosquito extermi- 
nation. 

From the above record and results the 
Agricultural & Mechanical College must 
be in a good sanitary condition. 

Respectfully submitted, 
(Signed) OTTO EHLINGER, 
Surgeon, 
Col. R. T. Milner, 
College Station, Texas. 
Dear Sir: 

After reading the recent report on con- 
ditions at A. & M. College. I deemed it 
my duty as an ex-student of this insti- 
tution, as county health officer of Brazos 
County, as ex-quarantine officer of State 
of Texas at Sabine Pass and El Paso, 
as acting assistant surgeon of P. H. & M.H. 
Service at New Orleans during last yel- 
low fever epidemic, also at Laredo, Texas, 
during last epidemic there—to give the 
actual facts as they exist. In order that 
I might give these facts accurately, I 
went out yesterday (Feb. 21, 1913), and 
took with me the City Health Officer of 
Bryan and we together inspected every 
department, also the grounds. 


Weather conditions during past thirty 
days have been so that we could not 
use our automobiles and in fact could 
hardly get over the streets of Bryan with 
a horse and buggy, but after reaching 
college grounds I was able to drive my 
car at will and at speed of 25 to 30 miles 
per hour. I regret that portion of Sen- 
ator Murray’s report in which he says: 
“The scene which met the committee’s 
gaze at the A. & M. College was a dreary 
one” * * * “There ‘were no  side- 
walks and the campus was deep in mud.” 
Such a statement is misleading to those 
who do not know the actual facts, for 
conditions at that time, while not ideal, 
were a great deal better than surround- 
ing towns and country. As to sanitary 
conditions, I beg to say that it has been 
my duty at various times and in a great 
many places to make these inspections, 
and I can truthfully say that I have 
never visited any place or town that was 
in as good a sanitary condition as the 
A. & M. College. As to campus being 
bleak and dreary, I will again have to 
take issue with the committee. To my 
mind, under normal conditions, there is 
no more beautiful spot in the State of 
Texas than the campus of A. & M. Col- 
lege, but owing to the extensive con- 
struction work which is now going on 
there is necessarily a great amount of 


construction material on the grounds, 
which is unsightly, but certainly not 
unsanitary. 

I will admit that the committee saw 
the College under the most unfavorable 
conditions that have existed since the 
institution was founded. Just after the 
big fires, the meningitis excitement, the 
big strike and during the thirty days 
of rainfall, conditions were necessarily at 
their worst. 

Any sensible and fair person. who cares 
to do so can by inspection of this insti- 
tution verify this report, which is sub- 
mitted in the interest of fairness and 
justice by 

Yours respectfully, 
. B. U. SIMS, M. D. 

Bryan, Texas. 

MR. PETEET: Now, I want to ask you 
about the original petition. It has been 
stated that the students first presented 
a petition for the reinstatement of stu- 
dents and adjustment of grades, which 
the Faculty refused to entertain. I wish 
you would read the caption of that peti- 
tion. 

PROF. SPENCE (Reading): “College 
Station, Texas,;\ Jan. 31, 19135" To the 
Faculty, Through the President and Com: 
mandant of Cadets: Sirs—Whereas, cer- 
tain members of our respective classes 
have been dismissed for certain offenses, 
principally hazing, of which we, the un- 
dersigned members, do swear on our 
word of honor and are willing to furnish 
material witnesses to the effect, that we 
are guilty, we ask that these men be 
reinstated in good standing and given 
their daily average and their term grades, 
or else the same punishment be meted out 
to each and every one of us. 

‘Whereas, certain men have been ab- 
sent from college, due to the excitement 
produced by the presence of meningitis 
on the campus; 


“Whereas, these men have suffered the 
reduction of their term and daily grades 
by ten points or more on account of said 
absence; 

“Whereas, these men were not warned 
nor any notice whatever given them to 
the effect that such a lowering would 
take place; 

“Whereas, such action is not in any 
sense coincident with our conception of 
the spirit of justice; 

“We, the undersigned, do ask that 
these men be credited with their full 
daily grades as they were at the time of 
their departure. 

“We must know the action taken on 
this petition by retreat today (January 
31, 1913). Very respectfully,” 

MR. PETEET: Signed by. the junior 
and sophomore classes? 

PROF. SPENCE: Yes. 

MR. PETEET: What action was taken 
when that petition was presented to the 
Faculty? 


PROF. SPENCE (Extract from Faculty 


Minutes, January 31, page 154): “The 
President stated he had a petition signed 


44 


by a large number of cadets regarding 
the discipline case acted on at the last 
meeting. It was moved and carried that 
the President be requested to inform the 
cadets that this petition violates para- 
graph 311, page 56, of the Blue Book, 
and therefore cannot be presented to the 
Faculty.” 

MR. PETEET: What is 
graph of the Blue Book?” 

PROF. SPENCE: Paragraph 311, page 
56: “No petition concerning matters of 
discipline shall be presented to the Fac- 
ulty except by the person or persons 
immediately concerned.” 

MR. PETEET: Now, each student is 
furnished a copy of that Blue Book? 

PROF. SPENCE: Yes. 

MR. PETEET: What is the purpose 
of that rule? Just state it in your own 
way. 

PROF. SPENCE: If we did not have 
that rule then a number of cadets might 
petition regarding a case of discipline 
and if their petition were denied they 
would then feel that they had been treat- 
ed badly, and we think that by having 
that rule and working under it we keep 
the corps in a better humor than we 
would if we did not have such a rule. 
The cadet concerned has the right of 
petition, but those not concerned are 
denied that right in order that they 
would not feel that their request had 
been denied and they themselves would 
then be in a bad humor. 

MR. PETEET: Now, what informa- 
tion came to you as to the action of the 
students when this petition was returned 
to them? 

PROF. SPENCE: ‘There was a called 
meeting at 10:30 a. m., February 1, when 
the President said he had called the 
meeting to receive a proclamation from 
the junior and sophomore and freshman 
classes. 


MR. PETEET: Were the students ad- 
vised to separate the matters in the peti- 
tion and the one regarding grades would 
be considered? 


PROF. SPENCE: JI have so under- 
stood from the President since then that 
he suggested to separate the matters, 
one regarding discipline, and the one 
regarding grades would be considered 
by the Faculty. The testimony before 
the Committee on Readmission is that 
the committee of the students reported 
the action of the Faculty -to the corps 
on Friday night, January 31, but no 
action was taken by the corps on sep- 
arating them or as to whether they 
would separate them or not. 

MR. PETEET: As a matter of fact, 
they did not separate them? 

PROF. SPENCE: They were not sep- 
arated. 


MR. PETEET: And their answer was 
the proclamation which has been read? 
PROF. SPENCE: The proclamation is 


in the record; it is in my statement 
there. 


that para- 


MR. PETEET: What is the attitude 
of the student body toward a cadet who 
associates freely and frequently with 
members of the Faculty. 

PROF. SPENCE: They say he is suck- 
ing and trying to get good standing; that 
is the term used. 

MR. PETEEHT: That is, a student who 
walks about the campus or is seen— 


PROF. SPENCE: —frequently convers- 
ing with professors— 

MR. PETHET: —is called a “sucker?” 

PROF. SPENCE: Yes, he is “sucking”’ 
that professor; I believe that is the term 
used. 


MR. PETEET: If there are no fur- 
ther questions, I guess we will excuse 
you, Professor, unless there is something 
you wish to present, 

PROF. SPENCE: 
further to present. 


JUDGE KONE: Mr. Senter, in his 
charges and in his speech here today, 
said repeatedly in effect that there was 
no sympathy or good feeling between 
the Faculty and the students. I want 
to ask Prof, Spence if there is any 
foundation for that charge? 


PROF. SPENCE: There is the gap 
which was mentioned a minute ago that 
prevents the boys from associating freely 
with the professors, the one brought out 
by Mr. Peteet’s question regarding the 
~ way they look on a cadet and talk about 
a cadet who associates freely with the 
professors and talks with them. In my 
opinion there is no professor on the cam- 
pus who would not be only too glad to 
have the cadets discuss freely with him 
all of their affairs, especially their les- 
sons and their business affairs, and 
would be glad also to meet them socially; 
but this gap is held there by the boys. 


JUDGE KONE: Is the relationship be- 
tween the professors and the students 
strained in any way? 


PROF. SPENCE: I do not think go. 
In all of their student activities, in their 
athletics, in their lyceum courses, every- 
thing of that sort, the younger profes- 
sors especially are very active in giving 
them their support and help. And of 
the Faculty proper there is a committee 
of student entertainments that helps 
them hold their entertainments and con: 
fers with them. If I am allowed to state 
here, I was told recently by Prof. R. J. 
Potts,. who is familiar with conditions at 
the University, that in his opinion the 
gap between the student body and the 
Faculty at the A. & M. is not as wide 
as at the University of Texas, but it is 
not as noticeable at the University of 
Texas, because the students have the 
citizens of Austin to associate with, 
whereas at the College there is no com- 
munity other than the College com- 
munity. 

JUDGE JOHN I. GUION: How many 
of the students have returned and been 
received by the Faculty? 


No; I have nothing 


. 


45 


PROF. SPENCE: Two hundred and 
fifty-five; there were 450 dismissed and 
255 have returned and have been re: 
ceived; 255 have been readmitted; 253 
were readmitted by the committee and 
five applications were referred to the 
Faculty; two of those applications were 
admitted by the Faculty, one was refused 
admission on account of his conduct on 
the campus after he was dismissed; the 
other two are known to have been lead- 
ers and the Faculty has tabled their 
applications for the present and they will 
be acted on in view of tne Board’s action. 


MR. PETEET: We will have the Dean 
next. 


DEAN CHARLES PURYEAR. 


MR. PETEET: Please state your con- 
nection with the College, your position 
there and how long you haye been with 
the College. 


PROF. PURYEAR: I have been there 
since the fall of 1889. I am Dean and 
Professor of Mathematics. 


MR. PETEET: I would like to have 
you submit in your own way such ob- 
servations as you feel it would be of 
interest and value to make to the 
Board on the subject of discipline 
at the College, to what extent it 
is enforced, to what extent it is 
not enforced and why, and especially 
your observations of the _ difficulties 
and successes encountered in enforc- 
ing the rule against hazing. I would like 
for you to state that in your own way. 
You have been there a long time and are 
pretty familiar with it. 


PROF. PURYEAR: I would like to 
say in the first place that I am not inti- 
mately connected with the enforcement 
of discipline; my duties lie in other di- 
rections as a member of the Faculty, and 
as a member of the Faculty I can state 
that the Faculty carefully considers all 
cases of discipline reported to it. The 
cases come to the Faculty from the Dis- 
cipline Committee; they make an inves- 
tigation and the Faculty acts in the light 
of the evidence brought out by the com- 
mittee and the recommendations they 
make, though we always reserve the 
privilege of acting different from the 
recommendations of the committee if we 
see fit. We have a military organiza- 
tion. For the preservation of order in 
barracks we rely on that organization. 
Matters of discipline are immediately 
under the control of the Commandant of 
Cadets. It is physically impossible for 
him to be present whenever there is a 
case of disorder. He must rely upon 
the cadet officers and sentinels. Speak- 
ing as a member of the Faculty, I would 
say that the uniform policy has been 
to ascertain the facts and to determine 
what the proper punishment should be 
in each case. In regarding to hazing, 
it is the fixed policy of the Faculty to 
punish every cadet found guilty of that 


offense. It is a very difficult matter to 
get evidence in cases of hazing; ofttimes 
those hazed do not report it, and those 
who are guilty of it do not report it; 
but whenever there is a case presented 
in which there is a clue to lead to the 
discovery of the participants in hazing, it 
is investigated by the Discipline Com- 
mittee, and where students are found 
guilty of hazing they are and have been 
invariably punished. It is neither prac- 
ticable nor desirable to have professors 
go through the barracks spying on stu- 
dents and looking for cases of disorder. 
Such a condition would be intolerable 
both to professors and students. The 
main business of professors is teaching; 
to require of them to take on also the 
duties of policemen would lead to the 
employment of a third-rate teaching staff. 
I believe that answers the question. 


MR. PETEET: Now, from your long 
association with the College and your 
intimate knowledge of the members of 
the Faculty, I will ask you if there is 
in the Faculty any disposition to hold 
aloof from the student body and to de. 
cline to associate with them and to mix 
and mingle with them in their affairs 
and give them counsel and advice? 

PROF. PURYEAR: There is not. 

MR. PETERT: 
of any instance at College wherein the 
Faculty or the responsible officers of the 
College have connived at hazing or wink- 
ed at it or given the students to under- 
stand that punishment would not be im- 
posed? 

PROF. PURYEHAR: =I believe it is 
true that some of our Commandants com- 
ing from West Point have to some extent 
given occasion for that belief on the part 
of the students. 


MR. PETEET: Well, has our present 
Commandant done so? 

PROF. PURYEAR: Not to my knowl- 
edge. Instead of saying “some” of our 
Commandants, I will say “one or more.” 

MR. PETEET: But so far as you know 
no such assurances have been given by 
the Faculty? 


PROF. PURYEAR: No, sir; decidedly 
not. 

MR. PETEET: And the policy of the 
Faculty has been consistently exercised 
in the direction of the suppression of 
hazing? 

PROF. PURYEAR: It has. 

MR. PETEET: Are there any ques- 
tions you gentlemen want to ask? 

JUDGE KONE: No, I think we have 
covered all the points. 

MR. PETEET: Is there anything fur- 
ther you wish to state? 

PROF. PURYEAR: I would like to 
make a statement as to the jurisdiction 
of the Faculty over these 466 after they 
signed the proclamation. 


MR. PETEHT: Allright. I would like 
to hear it. 


Have you ever known 


46 


PROF. PURYEAR: After they submit- 
ted a proclamation making peremptory 
demand of the Faculty that they rein- 
state twenty-two students dismissed for 
hazing was received. By the very act of 
presenting this proclamation the signers 
placed themselves in an attitude of in- 
subordination; they did not withdraw 
from the College; they were dismissed. 
After having placed themselves in that 
attitude of insubordination and of defi- 
ance of authority they could not escape 
the consequences by simply announcing 
their intention to leave College; none of 
them tendered their resignations, and 
even if they had such resignations would 
not have become effective until they had 
received the approval of the President. 


MR. PETEET: Now, then, I want to 
ask what is the procedure followed by 
a student desiring to resign? 


PROF. PURYEAR: A student desir- © 
ing to resign presents his resignation 
in writing to the Commandant of Cadets, 
accompanied by a statement of his rea- 
sons for desiring to resign. In order 
for the resignation to be accepted he 
must have the consent of his parents or 
guardian. Upon receiving the tender of 
resignation the Commandant forwards it 
to the President, who then approves or 
disapproves it; in case of disapproval it 
is not effective. 


MR. PETEET: None of those dismiss- 
ed for insubordination or desertion pre- 
sented resignations, did they? 


PROF. PURYEAR: I think not; but I 
am not prepared to say, because they 
would not come through my hands. I 
have never heard of any being presented; 
all I know is that one student, speaking 
for the rest, simply said: “The boys are 
going home tomorrow for Monday.” That 
is, a broad, general statement, and no 
individuals named. 


MR. PETERT: 
Now, Colonel. 


COL. R. T. MILNER, President A. & M. 
College. 


MR. PETEET: You have been Presi- 
dent of the A. & M. College how long? 


COL. MILNER: Going on five years. 
This is my fifth year. 


MR. PETEET: I would like to have 
you make such statement as you think 
will be informing to the Board about 
your attitude toward hazing and discip- 
line generally, and the efforts you have 
put forth to maintain discipline and espe- 
cially to suppress hazing. 


COL. MILNER: I have been unalter- 
ably opposed to hazing since I have been 
connected with the institution. I have 
had frequent conferences with the Com- 
mandant and have urged him }to do 
everything in his power to suppress it. 
I have often appeared before the entire 


I guess that is all. 


corps and called the attention of the 
students to the bad effect that hazing 
has upon the school, and I have had fre- 
quent conferences with the senior offi- 
cers in connection with the Command- 
ant, and have urged them to use their 
influence in every possible way to put 
it down. I think that is about all. 


MR. PETEET: I will ask you if you 
remember the receipt of a letter from 
the Governor last fall which was ad- 
dressed to you and to me containing a 
report of hazing made to him, and what 
action you took on that letter. I think 
you read it to the corps, did you not? 


COL. MILNER: I read that ‘letter 
with a number of others to the senior 
class. I think I had the seniors twice 
in the chapel and read them letters at 
each meeting which I had received from 
patrons of the school and friends of the 
school with reference to hazing. 


MR. PETEET: Appealing to them? 


COL. MILNER: Appealing to the stu- 
dents to do what they could to put i 
down, because it was injuring the insti- 
tution. I have often told the students 
that it was wrong in principle, that hazing 
has a tendency to arouse in the student 
who is doing the hazing all of the brutal 
instincts, that it is cowardly and un- 
manly, that it is humiliating to the boys 
hazed and its only effects are bad. 


MR. PETEHET: Now, something has 
been said here by one of the students, 
Mr. Cushman, a former student, this aft- 
ernoon, about your having a large num- 
ber of complaints, and intimating that 
you had not investigated any except the 
last one, which resulted in this dismissal. 
Is that statement true? 


COL. MILNER: I told the committee 
of the different classes when they called 
upon me in my office that I had re- 
ceived a large number of letters since 
I had been connected with the school 
with reference to hazing, some from 
the parents of the boys, some from per- 
sons who had been instrumental in get- 
ting the boys to go to the school, some 
from attorneys, stating that hazing was 
injurious to the institution and was keep- 
ing many good boys away. I may have 
said that I received as many as 75 let- 
ters or more during the last year or two 
—I did not tell them this year—but in 
no instance was there any particular 
case; they spoke in a general way of 
hazing, and it was impossible to get the 
evidence from the letters which I had 
received. 


MR. PETEET: Whenever you got a 
complaint of hazing, even when no names 
were given, what was your usual course? 


COL. MILNER: My usual course was 
to consult the Commandant, call his at- 
tention to it, to ask him to find out 
in what dormitory or dormitories it was 
being practiced and to apprehend the 


47 


guilty parties if it were possible. 

MR. PETEET: So that your failure 
to bring about the dismissal of students 
in all cases of complaint was due not to 
lack of will or purpose, but to lack of 
evidence to justify it? 

COL. MILNER: Certainly. 

MR. PETEET: Now, as to the attitude 
of the students toward hazing, what do 
you take that to be? Do the students 
favor hazing or do they oppose hazing? 


COL. MILNER: A large number of 
students favor hazing; I would say a 
majority; there are a number of stu- 
dents who are opposed to hazing; they 
believe it is wrong in principle and prac- 
tice. I believe a good many boys en- 
gage in it who believe it is wrong, but 
they are led into it like they are led 
into other evils, by bad association; but 
I have never seen many students who 
believe that hazing is right when you 
pin them right down to principle. 


MR. PETEET: Has it come to your 
knowledge that any of the students have 
written essays on the subject of hazing? 


COL. MILNER: Yes, sir. Not long 
ago the professor of English gave the 
engineer juniors, I believe, the subject, 
requesting that each cadet write his hon- 
est convictions about hazing; if he be- 
lieved it was right to make the very 
best defense of it he could; in other 
words, to express his honest convictions 
about it. I examined a large number 
of those essays and I think they were 
about equally divided, for and against. 
I believe that some of the cadets hon- 
estly believe that certain forms of haz- 
ing are essential to the best discipline; 
they believe that for certain offenses 
hazing is entirely justifiable. A large 
number of students engage in it because 
they believe that the freshmen are pert 
and need to be taught the lesson of 
subordination to the upper classmen. 


MR. PETEET: Well, within your 
knowledge, has any responsible authority 
at College condoned or approved hazing? 


COL. MILNER: Within my knowledge 
no responsible member of the Faculty 
has ever approved it in any way, unless 
it might be said that some of our Com- 
mandants have not taken the position 
that certain forms of hazing were really 
injurious. I do not believe, however, that 
we have had a Commandant since I 
have been there who has approved the 
methods of hazing as usually practiced 
by the cadets. 

MR. PETEET: Has our present Com- 
mandant? Has he within your knowl- 
edge encouraged or connived at hazing? 

COL. MILNER: He has not. 

MR. PETEET: Has he stood by the 
Faculty in his efforts to suppress hazing? 

COL. MILNER: He has. 

MR. PETEET: Now, I would like to 
ask you about the relations between the 
Faculty and the students and between 
the students and yourself. 


COL. MILNER: I think the relation 
between the students and the Faculty 
and the instructors is as cordial as the 
circumstances will permit. I believe if 
there is any lack of cordiality it is the 
fault of the students and not of any mem- 
ber of the Faculty or any instructor. Our 
conditions there are peculiar, unlike 
those of any other institution in the State. 
We are isolated. The only community 
we have at the College outside of the 
students is composed of the officers of 
the institution. In every possible way 
since I have been there the officers of 
the institution, the instructors, the em- 
ployes, have contributed in every pos- 
sible way to assist the students in pro- 
viding diversion and amusement; they 
contribute liberally to the lyceum, to 
their dances and their athletics and all 
of the student activities. The relation 
between myself and the students is as 
cordial as it is possible for me to make 
it. My home is open to the students at 
all hours. I announce to the students at 
the beginning of each school year that 
any cadet at any time, day or night, can 
have access to my office or my home for 
the purpose of making any complaint 
that he would be justifiable in making, 
and in a social way I do not think there 
is any gulf between the students and 
the President. 
day that I do not have cadets at my 
home for dinner. 
I keep open house for the cadets at all 
times when they are permitted to visit, 
and no student ever hesitates, so far as 
I know, to come to me in any time of 
trouble, I do not care what his troubles 
may be, and I have given them to under- 
stand in every way that they can be 
frank with me about their work in Col- 
lege. Of course, it is not expected that 
a student would complain of his in- 
structor unless he has been treated, as he 
thinks, unjustly. Whenever a _ student 
believes that he has been treated by any 
officer of the College unjustly, he has a 
right to come to me with his grievance. 


MR. PETEET: We have read tonight 
the report of Dr. Hllinger on the sanitary 
conditions there. I would like for you 
to state in a general way what the health 
of the College has been, the health of 
the corps. 


COL. MILNER: The health of the 
corps has been good. Most of the sick: 
ness among the cadets is brought there 
after the holidays; we have had two 
epidemics of mumps since I have been 


there, year before last, I believe it was, 
and I suppose three-fourths of the cadets 
had the mumps; but it was very mild, 
very few severe cases; it was impossible 
to isolate those cases in the hospital for 
want of room, consequently it got scat- 
tered all over the corps, in the barracks 
and everywhere. We have only had a 


There is scarcely a Sun- . 


It might be said that . 


48 


very few cases of pneumonia since I 
have been there; one or two cases of 
typhoid, and they were brought there 
from other places; some measles, not a 
great deal, brought there by students; 
three cases of meningitis—one last year 
in which the cadet recovered, and two 
deaths this year. 


JUDGE KONE: ‘Those .two {were 
brought there, were they? 
COL. MILNER: Yes, sir; they were 


brought there. The College surgeon is 
absolutely certain that those cases were 
brought there; they developed just about 
the right time after the holidays. After 
we had those two deaths from menin- 
gitis Dr. Ellinger called up Dr. Stiner 
and told him he would be glad for him 
to come over and investigate the sani- 
tary conditions of the College; he was 
sick and could not come, but sent his 
assistant, Dr. H. Hartman, State Bacte- 
riologist; he came there at the request 
of Dr. Stiner and after making a thor- 
ough investigation he pronounced the 


sanitary conditions at the College ideal— 


the words he used; he stated that he 
had been at a great many towns in the 
State and at none of them had he found 
the sanitary conditions as ideal as they 
were at the College. ; 


MR. PETEET: Now, I want to ask 
you about the attitude which you have 
taken toward the admission of students 
leaving the A. & M. College gaining 
admission to other colleges. 


COL. MILNER: Well, I have written 
a number of letters for boys that were 
dismissed giving their records up to the 
time they were dismissed for hazing, and 
in every instance that I was called on 
to write a letter the record of the cadet 
was a good one up to the time that he 
had been dismissed for hazing. I think 
I wrote a number of letters for boys 
who wanted to go to Oklahoma, some 
who wanted to go to the University of 
Arkansas and some “To Whom It May 
Concern.” I received a telegram from 
the father of one of the students the 
other day stating that his son and a 
neighbor’s son desired to enter the Agri- 
cultural College of Iowa, and asking if I 
would telegraph the president of that 
college that I had no objections to these 
boys entering the institution; and I im- 


- mediately telegraphed the president that 


JI had none. I have done everything that 
it would be legitimate for me to do to 
get those boys in other schools. 


MR. PETEET: In the letters you re- 
ferred to there, you recommended that 
they be taken in? You expressed the 
desire— 


COL. MILNER: That those boys should 
be entered, stating that I believed they 
would make splendid students. 


MR. PETEHET: Do you know. of any 
agreement among the agricultural col- 
leges of the South whereby they bind 
themselves not to accept students ‘from 
the others? 

COL. MILNER: There is no such agree- 
ment upon the part of the A. & M. Col- 
lege of Texas, and I do not suppose there 
is between any of the others. 

MR. PETEET: The A. & M. College 
is not a party to any such agreement 
with the other agricultural and mechan- 
ical colleges? 

COL. MILNER: No, sir; it is not. 

MR. PHETEET: You have not sought, 
nor has your Faculty sought, within your 
knowledge, to pursue the students beyond 
the campus and interfere with their ob- 
taining an education? 

COL. MILNER: No one, so far as I 
know, has undertaken to do anything to 
keep a boy who has gone away from our 
institution for any cause from entering 
any of the schools outside of the State, 
nor in the State, as far as that is con- 
cerned. Of course, there is a rule be- 
tween the Board of Regents of the Uni- 
versity and.the Board of Directors of the 
A. & M. College that a student dismissed 
from one for dishonorable conduct cannot 
enter the other. 

MR. PETEET: Is hazing considered 
dishonorable conduct? 

COL. MILNER: Well, I have always 
put it up to the University and left it to 
that institution whether it should receive 
a student dismissed from ours or not; 
they did receive a student dismissed for 
hazing from our College this year. 

MR. PETEET: And you offered no 
objection? 

COL. MILNER: None; on the con- 
trary, I wrote a letter as strong as I 
could expressing the hope that they 
might see fit to take him in, and he was 
taken in. 

MR. PETHET: Is there anything fur- 
ther that you feel would be of value to 
the Board in this hearing? 

COL. MILNER: No, nothing occurs to 
me right now. Some question might sug- 
gest something. 


MR. PETEET: ‘There is one matter, 
Dean; I wish you would explain the 
action of the Faculty in the matter of 
the grades of students who were absent 
from College, through the meningitis 
scare. 


PROF. PURYEAR: ‘Two students died 
of meningitis within twenty-four hours. 
This caused a panic among the students; 
many of them seemed to be afraid that 
they would contract the disease and were 
anxious to get away from the College. 
The students were assembled in the 
chapel and the announcement was made 
that furloughs would be granted to all 
who might apply; nothing was said about 
the matter of grades; so far as I know 
the students did not bring up the ques- 
tion; it may be readily seen that in such 
a time of panic the matter would not 


49 


be thought of. The Faculty took no 
action regarding the reduction of grades 
for the students who left on account 
of the meningitis scare. The case was 
covered by the ordinary rules, which are 
to the effect that when a student is ab- 
sent a considerable number of times from 
recitation he must make up the work 
missed before the day of the examina- 
tion or his grade will be lowered to such 
an extent as may be deemed proper by 
the head of the department. This ordi- 
nary rule was applied in the case referred 
to. To give full credit for work not fully 
done would be to falsify the record. 
Substantially the same rule is in effect 
at the University of Texas. There is 
one other matter I would like to bring 
up. It has been stated that an offer was 
made by the students to the faculty that 
if the twenty-seven men dismissed tor 
hazing should be reinstated the students 
would co-operate with the Faculty in an 
effort to put down hazing. No such offer 
was communicated to the Faculty. There 
is ample testimony before the Committee 
on Readmission that the question of 
making such an offer to the Faculty was 
discussed in their meetings, but that 
they took no action concerning it. 

MR. PETEET: Was there an oppor- 
tunity actually given those who were 
absent during the meningitis scare to 
make up their grades and have a special 
examination? 

COL. MILNER: 
state about that. 

PROF. PURYEAR: That is the rule. 
Attention was called to the rule; I can 
only answer for my own department, that 
I instructed my instructors to be guided 
by that rule. 

COL. MILNER: I think it has been 
followed by all the heads of all depart- 
ments, as far as I know. 

MR. PETEET: Colonel, when the first 
petition of the students was returned to 
them, did you advise them that they could 
separate the question of discipline from 
the adjustment of grades and the Faculty 
would consider their petition with re- 
spect to grades? 

COL. MILNER: 


MR. PETERT: 
or do? 


COL. MILNER: 


Prof. Puryear can 


I did. 
What did they say 


I do not Know what 


> they did; I heard that it was submitted 


at a meeting of the classes and they 
refused to consider it and said if the 
Faculty could not hear all or would not 
hear all they did not care whether they 
heard any of it, but I am not sure about 
that. ; 

MR, PETHEET: What has been your 
course with respect to appeals by stu- 
dents for rehearing in cases where pun- 
ishment has been imposed? 

COL. MILNER: In any case where a 
student has been dismissed from the Col- 
lege for any reason, if at any time he 
has any new evidence on his case the 


Faculty is called for the purpose of con- 
sidering it. 


” 


R. J. WINDROW, Instructor Civil HEngi- 
neering. 


MR. PETEET: Mr. Windrow, give the 
stenographer your name and position in 
the College. 

MR. WINDROW: R. J.°Windrow, In- 
structor in Civil Engineering. 

MR. PETEET: You are a member of 
the local Alumni Association, are you 
NOU ALY 

MR. WINDRQW: Yes, sir. 

MR. PETEET: And what are your 
relations with the students in the Col- 
lege? 

MR. WINDROW: Well, first, I am an 
instructor, of course, in the Civil Engi- 
neering Department. 

MR. PETEET: Are you a member of 
the Faculty? 

MR. WINDROW: No, sir. I have been 
very friendly, of course, with the stu- 
dents; I have quite a number of friends 
among the students and know quite a 
number of the boys on the campus, and 
I associate with some of them as friends. 

MR, PETEET: What action, if any, 
was taken by the local alumni in these 
recent breaches of discipline? 

MR. WINDROW: Well, the first action 
taken by the local alumni was Saturday 
morning, the first morning of the strike; 
I called a meeting of the local alumni 
to see if we could get in touch with the 
situation and confer with the boys and 
find out what their trouble was and see 
if they had any just complaints and ad- 
vise with them as older brothers. So 
we thought it advisable to send a com- 
mittee to the Faculty and ask them to 
give us the history of the case and the 
complaints, and we also had a committee 
to meet with the boys and asked them 
to send their committees to confer with 
us that afternoon, and they agreed to do 
that. The committee that went to the 
Faculty of course got all the information 
from them. We met that afternoon at 
about 1:30 and the boys sent their com- 
mittee of five members from the three 
classes to confer with us. We first asked 
them to give us a statement of their 
complaint and told them our attitude; 
that we were there to help them if they 
had a just cause for complaint and to 
advise them as to the best methods to 
pursue; we told them that we were older 
and probably could help them out. They 
did that, and after they+shad made ali 
their complaints we talked the matter 
over with them. 

MR. PETEET: Were their complaints 
substantially the same as stated in the 
proclamation? 

MR, WINDROW: Substantially the 
same as stated in the proclamation. We 
advised them not to take the action they 
were contemplating, that the complaints 


50 


they had did not justify them to take that 
action; and we also warned them that 
they were rebelling against the author- 
ities of the College and were doing wrong, 
and in a good many ways we tried to 
persuade them and show them that they 
were doing wrong, and plead with them 
not to take the action they said they 
were going to take. A good many of 
the boys made speeches or stated their 
views on the matter, and several of them 
admitted that they were probably taking 
the wrong step in making the demands 
that they had upon the Faculty, but that 
they had made these demands and they 
expected to stay by them; that they had 
signed a pledge to their classes that they 
would stay by them, and so they could 
not back out. After we had talked with 


them until about 4 o’clock in the after- 


noon and we saw we could not make 
an impression, we asked them the priv- 
ilege of sending one of our number to 
meet with them—they told us they were 
going to have a meeting after we got 
through of the three under classes—to 
meet with them and talk the matter over 
with the whole bunch; they said they 
would put that up to the classes and 
would let us know about it. Immediately 
after we adjourned I was told they were 
going to have a class meeting in the 
chapel and I went over to that meeting, 
and they took a vote as to whether I 
should address the meeting and voted 
that I should. I talked to the boys along 
the same line we had tried to reason 
with the committee, and they listened 
very attentively, but seemed to be set 
in their way; I felt that I had not made 
the impression I wanted to make. So 
we left the matter with them, and as 
you know, they voted to go out on the 
strike. 

MR. PETEET: You are president, I ~ 
believe, of the local Alumni Association? 

MR. WINDROW: Yes, sir. 

MR. PETEET: Have they made any 
formal expression or addressed any com- 
munications to the other Alumni Asso- 
ciations in the State, in which they ex- 
press any opinion about the course of 
affairs? 

MR, WINDROW: Yes, sir. We, of 
course, felt it our duty, being there on 
the campus, to keep the other members 
of the Alumni Association informed as 
to the exact state of affairs, so we ad- 
dressed a circular letter to all of the 
alumni members and told them the exact 
details of the case and just what efforts 
we had made to stop the insurrection. 

MR. PETEET: I would like to ask you 


if you or anyone else within your knowl- 


edge, advised the students to separate 
the matter of discipline from the matter 
of grades in their first petition and re- 
present their petition on the subject of 
grades? 

MR. WINDROW: We did. When we 
met with their committees they showed 
us what they had asked the Faculty to 
do. We told them that they could peti- 


tion the Faculty and we were satisfied 
the Faculty would listen to them on the 
matter of grades, but that they could see, 
and we showed them the rules, the Blue 
Book, showing them that they did not 
have the right and could not expect the 
Faculty to listen to their petition on the 
discipline matter. 

MR. PETEET: What action did they 
take on that? 

MR. WINDROW: Well, they said they 
were going to stand by their proclamation 
as it was, the class had voted that way 
and they, of course, were going to stay 
with them. They stated, too, that they 
were a little bit wrong in asking the 
Faculty that; that they had gone too far 
in that demand, and that they did not 
see how the Faculty could grant their 
demands? 

MR. PETEET: That was on what? 

MR, WINDROW: On tthe discipline 
matter’ for the reinstatement of the 
hazers. Mr. Cushman, the boy that spoke 
here this afternoon, I believe made that 
statement. 

MR. PETEET: 
that statement. 

MR. WINDROW: That they realized 
that they had placed the Faculty in such 
a position that they could not listen to 
this demand, this proclamation. 

MR. PETEHT: For the reinstatement 
of the hazers? 

MR. WINDROW: 
ment of the hazers. 

MR. PETEET: In other words, they 
realized that they had asked the Faculty 
to do something which the Faculty could 
not do? : 

MR. WINDROW: They realized that 
they had put it up to the Faculty in such 
a form that they could not consider it. 
We showed them they had done that and 
they really admitted it. 

MR. PETEET: They manifested or 
conceded a knowledge of the rule in the 
Blue Book prohibiting such a petition? 

MR. WINDROW: Oh, yes. I remem- 
ber I went to read this paragraph to 
them and they all kind of smiled—‘Oh, 
we have heard that; we know that by 
heart.” 

MR. PETEET: So they knew they 
were making a petition out of the form 
and against the rules of the book? 

MR. WINDROW: Yes, they realized 
that. 

JUDGE KONE: In other words, they 
knew that they had made an illegal de- 
mand on the Faculty? 

MR. WINDROW: According to the 
Blue Book, yes. 

JUDGE KONE: According to their own 
understanding of the Blue Book? 

MR. WINDROW: Yes, sir. 

MR. PETEET: Now, is there anything 
further you think of about this affair? 

MR. WINDROW: I do not think of 
anything at present. 


I did not quite catch 


For the reinstate- 


LIEUTENANT LEVI BROWN. 


51 


~ junior, 


MR. PETEET: Fflease give your name 
and rank in the army. 

LIEUT. BROWN: Levi Brown, First 
Lieutenant Cavalry, unassigned; Profes- 
sor Military Science and Tactics and Com- 
mandant of Cadets. 

MR. PETEET: How long have you 
been at the A. & M. College? 

LIHUT, BROWN: Since June 7, 1912. 

MR. PETEET: Now, first, I wish you 
would explain the military system of 
maintaining discipline among the stu- 
dents. 

LIEUT. BROWN: The Commandant 
of Cadets and one assistant, under the 
supervision of the President, are directly 
in charge »of the discipline among the 
students. The cadet officers come from 
the senior class and the non-commission- 
ed officers or sergeants from the junior; 
the corporals come from the sophomore 
class. They are immediately in charge 
of the corps in the dormitories. The 
companies are quartered together; the 
company officers and non-commissioned 
officers are responsible for the good or- 
der and discipline in the company. In 
addition to that, there is one man from 
the senior class on each floor who is 
detailed each week as division inspector 
and who is held responsible for good 
order and discipline on his particular 
floor. The most number of rooms there 
are on any one floor, I think, is about 
twenty-six. He makes two inspections 
during the day, one in the morning just 
before breakfast to see that the rooms 
are cleaned up properly, and one inspec- 
tion at taps, but he is held responsible 
for all the time during study hours for 
good order in his division. The sentinels 
are detailed from the privates of the 
sophomore and freshman class 
and are posted in the evening from 7 un- 
til 10 o’clock. Up until the meningitis 
scare. there was one sentinel on each 
floor, but since that time, with so many 
boys going home, sentinel duty became 
so frequent that it was taking too much 
of the time of the boys, so we cut down 
to one sentinel to the dormitory, so as 
not to take so much time from study. 


MR. PETEET: They go on sentinel 
duty in rotation? 


LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, sir, and we 
reduced the sentinels so as not to have 
the duty coming so often. 

MR. PETEET: What is the duty of 
the sentinel? 

LIEUT. BROWN: The sentinels’ duty 
is when he first goes on post to inspect 
every room to see that the cadets be- 
longing in the room are there and that 
nobody is visiting, and his duty is to 
report all cases of visiting or disorder 
of any kind that occurs on his post in 
any of the rooms or in the hall while 
he is on post. 

MR. PETEET: 
unlocked, are they? 

LIEUT. BROWN: The doors of rooms 
that are occupied are kept unlocked. 


The doors are Kept 


MR, PETEET: All occupied rooms are 
left unlocked. 

LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, the sentinel 
opens the door, looks in and if the an- 
swer is “All right,’ he is supposed to 
know the man in there who has answered 
SC ANATISUt, 4 ' 

MR. PETEET: The company being 
quartered together, their captain and of- 
ficers room in the same dormitory with 
them? 

LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, sir. 

MR. PETEET: And on each floor is 
a senior officer. 

LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, sir. 

MR. PETEET: And they make re- 
ports. The sentinel reports to whom? 

LIEUT BROWN: The corporal of the 
guard takes the report from the sentinel 
when he comes off post; the corporal 
of the guard and the officer of the day 
inspect that sentinel while he is on post, 
to see that he is performing his duty 
and the sentinel is the one to report, 
and when he comes off, he gives his 
report of “All right.” It is specified in 
the Blue Book what the meaning of the 
words “All right” is, and it is on honor. 

MR, PETEET: Now that is the mili- 
tary system of maintaining discipline in 
the corps? 

LIEUT. BROWN: Now in addition to 
that, I, myself, make inspections at night; 
I have never made one in the daytime; 
at night any time after supper, between 
supper and “Taps.” I do not go down 
every night, but I ‘drop in at frequent 
intervals, make one dormitory tonight, 
probably tomorrow night I make another, 
make an inspection of it; maybe I will 
not go into that dormitory again for two 
or three nights. And the Assistant Com- 
mandant, J. M. Kenney, who is a retired 
Quartermaster Sergeant from the Regu- 
lar Army, we require him to inspect twice 
a week, and I make two inspections a 
week; there are eight dormitories, he 
takes two of them and I take two of them 
twice a week, so we get around to every 
dormitory once a week, and we come to 
them at irregular intervals, which is of 
more use than coming at regular inter- 
vals, when they know when to look for 
you; we drop in at odd times. It was 
at one of those inspections that we dis- 
covered those six men, the first hazing 
case, after “Tatoo,” between “Tatoo” 
and. ‘Taps 

MR. PETEET: ‘The honor system pre- 
vails in the military system? 

LIEUT. BROWN: § Yes. 


MR. PETEET: The cadets are on 
honor to report violations of the rules? 

LIFUT, BROWN: That is when on 
duty; the division inspectors and the 
captains and the officers, the non-com- 
missioned .officers, when they are on 
duty, and at play time; I told them that 
when they were playing, let them play, 
and the proposition of making them re- 
port all breaches of regulations they see, 
that is, putting it down pretty hard on 


52 


the boy, expecting him to report every- 
thing. 

MR. PETEET: Your requirement is 
for those on duty to make reports? 

LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, sir; and there 
is always some one on duty in every hall 
of every dormitory, and the officer of the 
day, he is on duty, and the field officers 
of the day are on duty for the twenty- 
four hours, they report anything they see. 
The field officer of the day is detailed 
from one of the five senior officers, 
Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel and three 
Majors; he inspects certain dormitories 
and he reports to me every day and IL 
give him special instructions, if there is . 
any suspicion in any way with refer- 
ence to any dormitory, that if there is 
anything going on wrong, to go over 
there and look out for it. Now, like in 
the cases of those last five men that 
were reported to me by the students, 
that those men were hazing over there, 
they told me the time they were doing 
it, and I sent the field officer of the 
day around at those times to inspect 
that dormitory to keep that down; had 
him to call the cadets out and put him 
onto that business, and made inspection 
myself, also; afterward it was reported 
they did not do any more hazing, but 
we worked on the case and took it up 
and investigated it. : 

MR. PETEET: Did reports of breaches 
of discipline finally reach you through 
the channel of those officers? 

LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, sir. Those re- 
ports are deposited in boxes for each 
company, and then they are gotten to- 


‘gether by a clerk in the office and put 


in one alphabetical list and read out in 
the mess hall and posted on the bulletin 
board, so a man can know whether he 
has been reported for an offense. ~* 

MR. PETEET: AI those accused or 
charged with offenses are given an op- 
portunity to make a defense? 

LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, sir. 

MR. PETEET: The fact is they are 
required to make a statement? 

LIEUT. BROWN: ‘They are all re- 
quired to make a statement—no, they 
are not all required. In case of absence 
from a class or a serious offense they 
are required to make an explanation, but 
for a minor offense like being late for 
class or formation, if the man has no 
excuse, he is not required to make an 
explanation. . 


MR. PETEET: If he has an excuse, 
he has the right to present it. 


LIKUT. BROWN: Yes, sir; it is read 
out in the mess hall and posted on the 
bulletin board. The student writes out 
his explanation and deposits it in the 
box and I get hold of it. And right there 
I want to state this, that whenever a 
man comes in with an explanation of any 
kind, even if it is three months late, 
it is received and taken off; I have taken 
a lot of men there that were right up 
on the edge of the demerits and about 


ready to be sent hime; I have taken 
them in and shown them their reports 
and asked them for any excuses and. if 
they had any excuses, they would be 
taken off regardless of the time limit. 

MR. PHTEET: At what hours does 
hazing usually occur? 

LIEKUT, BROWN: It usually occurs on 
Saturday night between supper and call 
to quarters, and between “Tatoo” and 
Taps.’ 

MR. PETEET: Between supper and 
call to quarters, what hours are they? 

LIHUT. BROWN: That is between 
about 6:30 and 7 o’clock in the evening, 
and between 10 and 10:15 at night, and 
usually on Saturday night. 

MR. PETEET: Usually there is no 
studying between those hours? 

LIEUT. BROWN: No, and that is the 
time when there is no sentinels on, be- 
tween supper and call to quarters; the 
sentinels go on about 7 o’clock, and that 
is the time the most of the hazing 
goes on. 

MR. PETEET: Does most of the haz- 
ing occur inside of the barracks or out? 

LIEUT. BROWN: Most of it is inside 
the barracks; practically all of it. 

MR. PETEET: Well, now, what is the 
attitude of the corps generally toward 
hazing? 

LIEUT. BROWN: Well, the majority 
of them seem to think that you have got 
to have class distinction and have got to 
have either hazing or some substitute 
for it to maintain that distinction of 
class. ' 

MR. PETEET: That is, a distinction 
between an under classman and an upper 
classman? ; 

LIEUT. BROWN: Yes. Some of the 
cadets of the school maintain that; I had 
an argument there with a brother of one 
of these men who was dismissed, For- 
sythe; he was a post-graduate and he 
maintained that they had to have some- 
thing to take its place; that a school 
cannot run without hazing or something 
of the kind. I was talking with the boy 
the other day and he was speaking of his 
brother being in it. 

MR. PETEET: What is the attitude 
toward strapping? How does the corps 
regard strapping students with belts—-I 
mean the general estimation in which 
that practice is held? 


LIEUT. BROWN: Well, I do not know 
—I think they strap one another, that is 
the same classes, they strap one another; 
they have what they call ‘Moot Courts” 
and try one another and strap one an- 
other. 

MR. PETHET: But that is~ distin- 
guished from the strapping of the new 
class men by the upper men? 


LIEUT. BROWN: Oh, yes; but there 
are times when that is confused with 
hazing. Now, when they had the short 
course down there for farmers, five of 
them came into the President’s office and 
complained about a case of hazing over 


53 


there. One young man named Schultz 
had claimed that he had been hazed bru- 
tally. I sent for Schultz and he said 
no, that the hazing he got was not haz- 
ing, but they had a kangaroo court 
among the freshmen and that they tried 
a man for any offense, moral or other- 
wise; if a man would swear or used vul- 
gar language, they call him in and tried 
him and generally strapped him, and that 
was what was going on that those farm- 
ers had seen and reported to the Pres- 
ident. There are some companies there 
where there is practically no hazing, 
where the captains and cadet officers go 
out and look after it and put it down; 
but there are other companies where it 
has occurred pretty much to excess; that 
is, I say pretty much to excess, I think 
that because it is a proposition that I 
cannot go out and catch up with, and 
know it of my own knowledge; but one 
time there the Dean got an anonymous 
complaint from a man which said hazing 
was getting pretty bad in a certain hall, 
and that is the hall I went through and 
where we caught those five men. 

MR. PETEET: It is within the power 
largely of the senior class to control 
hazing, is it not—or what class does the 
most hazing? 

LIEUT. BROWN: The sophomores do 
the most hazing; the under class man 
maintain that the seniors should put 
down hazing, that they must take the 
stand against it and put it down; but 
it is a hard proposition.to get the seniors 
to report hazing; they will go around 
and stop it, but it will be a hard propo- 
sition to get them to report it, owing to 
the feeling between the cadets; and, an- 
other thing, a senior having hazed a 
sophomore, cannot be consistent and tel) 
the other fellows, “Thou shalt not do 
what I did as a sophomore”; it has to 
come from the class itself, and the 
classes above do not have much to do 
with it. 

MR. PETEET: So the seniors will 
stop hazing, but they will not report it. 

LIEUT, BROWN. They will not report 
1a Bit: 

MR. PETEET: Now, coming down to 
the particular breaches of discipline, will 
you relate the instances of punishment 
for hazing since you have been there? 


LIEUT. BROWN: Some time in Octo- 
ber, when investigation was made on 
account of the anonymous letter that 
came to the Dean, I went into Milner 
Hall, where the hazing was reported, 
between ‘‘Tatoo” and “Taps” and _ in- 
spected in the basement, where the fresh- 
men were rooming, and discovered there, 
I think, about six sophomores that were 
turning the freshmen out of their rooms 
and marching them down to the sink, and 
that case was reported and investigated. 

MR. PETEET: They were punished 
for that, some of them? 


LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, the men that 
had ordered the boys out of their rooms 


to the sink were suspended until next 
September. There was either one or two 
of the men that had just followed along 
and had not said a word to the fresh- 
men, were just there laughing and look- 
ing on, and they were put on probation 
until some time this year. 
Then, after that, there was the case 
of Mr. Raiden from Northwest Texas 
somewhere; he reported that his two 
boys had leit college on account of haz- 
ing, and he came down to the College 
and said there was only one man that 
they knew, was “Merry Widow” Ander- 
son. That case was investigated, and 
the cadet, Anderson, was dismissed. 


And the time that the corps went to 
Dallas, when the train ran in there in 
the morning, I got off and walked up 
alongside the train, getting ready to take 
the cadets off the train, and discovered 
one young man there who caught hold 
of another one and pulled him around 
and said: ‘Get your nose over that table,” 
and his case was reported and he was 
dismissed. 

MR. PETEET: 
strapping him? | 

LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, sir; that is the 
proposition, “Get your nose over that 
table,” and pulled him. around; that was 
the first move in strapping; they make 
them get their noses down and hold their 
noses down to the table, and they cannot 
take their noses off while they strap 
them. That young man was dismissed, 
and Anderson was dismissed. 

MR. PETEET: How did you discover 
the case of the twenty-two men? 

LIEUT. BROWN: There was a letter 
from a Dr. Masterson, to a member of 
the Faculty there, in which it was claimed 
that his nephew, as he expressed it, was 
having a pretty hard road to travel on 
account of hazing, and said they did not 
mind certain jokes, but he did not think 
it was right where all the freshmen in 
the country were taken up and brutally 
strapped because they would not throw 
in fifty cents to feed the upper classmen. 
That letter was turned over to the Fac- 
ulty and was read by the Faculty to the 
Discipline Committee, referred to them 
for investigation; it being in B Company, 
I just got a roll of the company and got 
all the freshmen up. This happened just 
before Christmas and we called the fresh- 
men in almost like a grand jury investi- 
gation and went through them and asked 
them about that strapping up in Foster 
Hall on account of the Christmas tree, 
as they called it. I asked who was there, 
and if they were there if they got strap- 
ped, and who did it, and what other fresh- 
men were there. After going through 
with them we had about twenty-five 
names of cadets that were said to have 
been there and who had taken part in 
the strapping. Then those men were 
brought before the Discipline Committee, 
and the charge was made to them that 
they had been guilty of strapping up 


For the purpose of 


54 


there on the top floor of Foster Hall on 
the night of December 14, strapping all 
the freshmen in the company for not giv- 
ing them a Christmas tree. 
them said they were guilty of strapping 
them, but it was not for not giving the 
Christmas tree, but it was posting a 
notice on the bulletin board that they 
were not going to give it. 

MR. PETEET: Seventeen of that num- 
ber pleaded guilty? 

LIEUT. BROWN: § Yes, sir. 

MR. PETEET: What was the con- 
clusion of the committee and what was 
the evidence before it as to the other 
five? 

LIEUT. BROWN: £4Well, four others - 
were found guilty of strapping freshmen 
on that night of December 14. One of 
them was found guilty of being in a party 
of upper classmen that went around the 
next night, December 15, and strapped 
the men that were absent from any calls 
on the night of the 14th; that is, fresh- 
men that were absent on the night of 
the 14th. 

MR. PETEET: Finishing up the job? 

LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, sir. There was 
one cadet from the Orphan Asylum who 
was working his way through College and 
worked at the barn milking in the even- 
ing and he did not get down to supper; 
he went down to the mess hall and ate 
supper late, so he was absent on the 14th 
and they waited and got him Sunday 
night. Now, I will give you the evidence 
in those four cases. 

MR. PETEET: That is, the four who 
did not plead guilty? 

LIHUT. BROWN: The four who were 
absent at the time of the investigation. 
Williford, P. J., was absent; there were 
five freshmen testified positively that 
Williford was there and did strap thei 
and other freshmen; there was one sovh- 
omore, Mr. Crow, from Waco, who testi- 
fied that Williford was there and took 
part in it, and a junior, Mr. Ford, who 
plead guilty, as did Mr. Crow, both tes- 
tified that Williford was there and joined 
with them in the strapping; nobody tes- 
tified that he was not there; of course, 
some of these said, “I do not believe he 
was there,” and, of course, any man in 
a crowd of forty or fifty people cannot 
remember every man that was there 

MR. PETHET: But there was affirni- 
ative testimony to that extent? 

LIEUT. BROWN: That he was there? 
Yes, sir. And Mr. Wood, B., in his case, 
seven freshmen testified positively that 
he was there; one of them said he knew 
he was there, because he twisted his belt 
and it hurt a whole lot worse than the 
others did; and two sophomores and two 
juniors who plead guilty to hazing at this 
time, testified that he was there and 
joined with them in the strapping. In 
the case of Bradley, L. L., five freshmen- 
testified that he was there and strapped 
them or other freshmen jn the comnany, 
and two juniors who had plead guilty to 


Seventeen of | 


hazing, testified that he was there and 
joined with them. In the case of Mr. 
Randlett, S. L., who was absent, six 
freshmen testified that he was there and 
strapped them. As Chairman of the Dis- 
cipline Committee, I felt it would be 
doing these young men a kindness, inas- 
much as they were away from Coilege, 
to dismiss them and let them know it, to 
save them the expense of a trip down to 
the College and back, and further save 
them the humiliation among their friends 
and neighbors of having been dismissed. 
They were at home and they could say, 
“Why, I am not going back to College,” 
and would not go down: there. It has 
never occurred to me that any of these 
could possibly be otherwise than guilty 
from the preponderance of the testimony 
against them. Mr. Bradley returned and 
stated that he was not guilty; that he 
was not there on the night of December 
14; I took him to Colonel Milner and told 
him he would reinstate him; to 20 to all 
his classes and examination and that he 
could get a hearing and that he could 
bring up his testimony to show that he 
was not there, and if after all he was 
found not guilty, they would expunge 
from the record of the transaction that 
portion of it that referred to him. Mr. 
Randlett, S. L., his father wrote down 
about the question of his having been 
dismissed while he was away, and a 
letter was written to him embodying 
those same ideas, that he could return, 
be reinstated, go on with his classes, 
and if on investigation it showed that 
he was not there, that the record against 
him would be expunged; those are the 
words that we used, not that he would 
be reinstated, but that the record would 
be expunged. Mr. Randlett never re- 
turned. Mr. Wood returned, but when 
he heard he was dismissed, he left on 
the next train. 

MR. PETEEHT: 
you? 

LIEUT. BROWN: No, he went to see 
Dr. Ellinger, and told the Doctor he 
wanted to get a certificate from the 
Doctor to show he never had been drunk 
on the campus, and said if he got home 
his daddy would jump on him for it, 
if he was dismissed for hazing and had 
to go home, and he wanted the certifi- 
cate to show his daddy he was never 
drunk on the campus, so that his father 
would not whip him when he got home. 


MR. PETEET: But he made no denial 
of his guilt? 

LIEUT. BROWN: No denial of his 
guilt, and he never heard anything further 
from Mr. Williford. 

The case of Mr. Eschenburg, E. A., 
who claimed he was not guilty and was 
not present on the night of December 14, 
Mr. Taylor, O. O., a man who was ab- 
sent on the night of the 14th, who was 
strapped Sunday night, December 15, 
testified that he Knew Eschenburg well, 
was in the same company with him, and 


Did he come to see 


OU 
co) | 


was positive that Eschenburg came 
around with the party and strapped him 
en the night of December 15. Mr. Bosque, 
a former classmate of Mr. Eschenburg’s 
and roommate of Taylors’ in the same 
company with him, said that Eschenburg 
strapped Taylor on the night of the 15th; 
he said he was positive about it and no 
chance for him to be mistaken. Mr. 
Eschenburg said that he was almost 
positive that he had not strapped Mr. 
Taylor on the night of December 15, but 
was not sure, and said, “I have strapped 
him sometimes since I have been here,” 
and that was the contention that they 
put up. Eschenburg was dismissed be- 
cause he had been guilty of hazing at 
some other time, and that is why they 
put this in the proclamation, “We are 
all equally guilty.” 

MR. PETEET: 
down to the five. 

LIEUT. BROWN: On or about the 
23d of January, I do not remember the 
exact date, there was a cadet came into 
my office and told me there were five 
men, and gave me their names—Butts, 
Hee Be ora han) (i iyo UGRer cert ay Gu 
Kendrick, J. M.; Fly, W. S.—that were 
in the habit of sending for the fresh- 
men to come to their rooms, sometimes 
every night, sometimes every other 
night, sometimes skipped two or three 
nights, just to be strapped, carrying it 
on promiscuously, and if they did not 
come they would go down and get them, 
and had been doing this ever since 
Christmas and before, too. 


It was reported to me that these five 
men were strapping the men and that 
the freshmen were complaining that it 
was interferring with their studying and 
it was getting monotonous. So I imme- 
diately sent for the Captain of the com- 
pany and told him that the hazing, the 
promiscuous business of strapping fresh- 
men, that was going on in his hall, had 
to be stopped, that I knew the names 
of the men that were doing it, and the 
Captain said, “You have nothing on me, 
Lieutenant.” I then sent for the fresh- 
men of that company, sent for all the 
freshmen in the basement, from K Com- 
pany, and they came in and said, ‘No, 
they had not been strapped,’ and were 
not being bothered. The “I” Company 
freshmen came in and Mr. Tippett stated 
he had been strapped twice since he: 
entered College; Mr. M. L. Race said he: 
had never been strapped since he hadi 
been a student there; Mr. Oglesby testi- 
fied that a few nights before Christmas, 
Mr. Graham, Mr. Baker and Mr. Ken- 
drick strapped him as a Christmas 
present just before going off. Mr. 
Pierce testified that he had been sent 
for several times at Milner Hall, to get 
a strapping. This investigation was on 
January 28th, and Mr. Pierce testified 
that several nights before that Kendrick, 
Graham, Fly, Baker, all strapped him up 
in the room and Mr. Butts came in as 


Now, then, we come 


he was leaving the room, and that they had 
from the basement of Milner Hall, the 
following freshmen: Cooper, Northcott 
and Kieling, and they had strapped him, 
but that Murphy was not strapped while 
he was there, each one in the room took 
a look at him; he said they put stripes 
on him, and that he was whipped once 
or twice since Christmas. Mr. Burris, 
S. T.; testified he had been strapped a 
little at the first of the year by Graham 


and Kendrick, but not since Christmas. | 


Mr. Kelly testified that he had been 
strapped, that Kendrick and Graham 
strapped him the night before he left 
for home for the Christmas holidays, 
they hit him five or six licks. Mr. North- 
cott testified he had been sent for to 
come from the basement up to the third 
floor of Milner Hall to be strapped, that 
Baker, Kendrick, Graham and Butts had 
strapped him. Mr. Kieling, R. A., testi- 
fied he had been sent for to go to the 
third floor of Milner Hall to be strapped, 
that Butts, Graham, Fly, Kendrick and 
Baker had strapped him. Mr. Killow 
testified that he had been sent for to 
go, but did not go and he said they 
came down into the basement and 
strapped him. Now that is the testimony 
I went through in my office, to deter- 
mine whether there was a case of hazing 
there. 


MR. PETEET: The statement that 
you have just made relating to the testi- 
mony in theSe various cases is made 
after reference to your notes. 


LIEUT. BROWN: Notes taken at the 
time, yes, sir. Now with that testimony 
establishing a case, I reported it to the 
Faculty; I could not refer a case to the 
Discipline Committee myself, but I re- 
ferred it to the Faculty and they re- 
ferred it to the Discipline Committee 
for investigation and report. Then I 
sent for those five men and told them, 
“You are charged with hazing,” and told 
them what it was, and I asked them 
what they were going to do about it. 
“If you are going to plead not guilty, I 
want to get the Discipline Committee 
together at a time so that we can get 
the witnesses and go through it; there 
are two members of the senior class on 
this Discipline Committee who sat with 
us during the gathering of that testi- 
mony and they have an examination, but 
if you are going to plead guilty, you 
can call the committee at a time when 
it will not interfere with their studies.” 
They all said, “We will plead guilty, you 
have got the goods on us, we are guilty.” 
Then the meeting was called for four 
o’clock one afternoon and all five ap- 
peared and four pled guilty. Then I 
took these notes and referred to them 
and said, “Mr. Butts, you did so and 
so,’ and read from this testimony and 
he changed his plea to guilty and said, 
“You have got the goods on me, I am 
guilty.” 


MR. PETEET: Now then, you stated 


~- 


56 


just now that a few members of the 
senior class sat with the Discipline Com- 
mittee, what was the purpose of that? 

LIEUT. BROWN: As the Faculty ex- 
pressed it, to assist in securing and de- 
termining evidence. 

MR. PETEET: So the senior class 
had an opportunity, through two of the 
representatives to know all the testi- 
mony in all cases of discipline. ; 

LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, they have no 
vote, but they hear every bit of the 
testimony that is gone into. And those 
two members were with us in all of this 
investigation when every witness was 
taken up about the twenty-two students. 

MR. PETEET: So two representa-. 


tives of the senior class— 


LIHUT. BROWN: —were present 
when every question was asked. 

MR. PETEET: In the case of the 
twenty-two? 

LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, sir, except that 
night after the seventeen had plead guilty 
and some others against whom there 
was some testimony as to hazing plead 
“not guilty,’ and eight were absent 
against whom there was some testimony 
as to hazing, that night in reaching our 
finding in the Discipline Committee, it 
was not in the presence of those two 
senior cadets, we sent out for the wit- 
nesses who had testified and asked them 
if they were sure, if there was any 
chance for them to be mistaken, and in 
every case the man re-called said there . 
was no,chance to be mistaken, and where 
he did say there was a chance to be 
mistaken, that change was made in his 
testimony. 


MR. PETEET: So the only testimony 
taken in the absence of the senior rep- 
resentative was to re-call witnesses and 
ask them if they were certain in their 
previous testimony? 

LIU BROWN eyes: 

MR. PETEET: Now did the senior 
cadet who sat with the Discipline Com- 
mittee, offer any protest against the 
findings of the committee? 

LIEUT. BROWN: None whatever. 

MR. PETEET: Within your knowl- 
edge, has any person in authority at the 
College connived or condoned or ap- 
proved the strapping of cadets—I mean 
by that any member of the Faculty or 
yourself or the President or any one in 
authority. 

LIEUT. BROWN: The ‘strapping of 
cadets or of new cadets? 

MR. PETEET: The strapping of the 
freshmen. 

LIEUT. BROWN: No, not that I know 
of. Now when we make some non-com- 
missioned officers, they will get their 
“stripes,’ as it is called, and I have 
passed out and seen them strapped. 

MR. PETEET: It is.a custom when 
a boy is honored for his associates to 
strap him? 

LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, sir; that is 
done in front of the mess hall, as soon 


‘ 

as the order is read out, each fellow 
pulls off his belt and takes a lick at the 
man appointed, 

MR. PETEET: That is a kind of initia- 
‘tion into his office of honor? 

LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, sir. 
the only thing that is condoned. 

MR. PETEET: ‘There has been no 
condoning or approving of what is com- 
monly known as hazing? 

LIEUT. BROWN: No. 

MR. PETEET: By anyone 
thority? 

LIEUT. BROWN: No, sir. 


MR. PETEET: Is there anything fur- 
ther that I have overlooked? 

LIEUT. BROWN: ‘There is one ques- 
tion there that Mr. Senter at one time 
was claiming that the boys did not get 
a square deal, the ones that returned 
from Christmas holidays, and that some 
of them were dropped from the rolls and 
lost their stripes. To explain that, I 
will give you an idea of the matter and 
a copy of the order that was published 
to the corps. I will just insert it in the 
record. (Reading:) (Said order appears 
at another place in this report.) That 
order was published to them and we 
called their attention to it, and shortly 
before Christmas the seniors were pre- 
sented with their commissions as offi- 
cers and I explained to them then that 
any man who did not get back from 
the holidays on time would be dropped 
from the rolls, and in addition to having 
to pay his three dollars, he would lose 
his stripes, and would come back as a 
private, having once been dropped from 
the rolls they could not come back as 
officers. They were told that before 
they went home and then this order was 
posted on the bulletin board, and ex- 
plained to them again in the chapel. 

MR. PETEET: That is the usual and 


That is 


in au- 


customary order in military institutions. 
LIEUT. BROWN: Yes, if a man is 
dropped from a class, he comes back as 
a private. It is the same ‘proposition 
in the regular army; when a man serves 
his enlistment and is discharged and 
re-enlists, he re-enlists as a private. 
MR, PETEET: Explain what action 
was taken by you in the cases of the 
cadets who signed the supplemental list 
and asked if that would be added to 
the signers of the original proclamation. 
LIEUT. BROWN: On February 2, 
three or four men came into my office 
to take their names off the list; I asked 
them which list they signed, and they 
said they signed the additional list, and 
I said, “You have not been dismissed, 
stay on the campus and you will still 
be students; you cannot put your names 
on a petition that has already gone in; 
if you want to put in any additional 
demands, write them out and put them 
in.’ [I did not ask the names of those 
men, I know there was three or four 
of them; so:when the case came up be- 
fore the Faculty of that additional list 
I stated that and this additional list 
was turned over to the Discipline Com- 
mittee for recommendation, and we re- 
commended that all such as left the 
campus be dismissed for deserting in 
sympathy with the subordinate move- 
ment, and that all those who had remained 
on the campus be retained on the rolls, 
in view of the fact that some had asked 
to have their names taken off, and had 
been told that it was not necessary, 
and they had probably told others, and 
of the forty-two there were fifteen who 
remained on the campus and are still 
students; there were thirteen or four- 
teen students that signed nothing at all, 
that deserted in sympathy with this 
movement and. were dismissed. 


57 


Ane 


. te 7 
eee 
4 


Ee 


he seve 


ra 
f 


a 


3 0112 105937483 


‘ Pe ee ae 


1 eto timnine ts 


- ‘ FSi th, FUT ea 
Pw Tee ay : 2 ¥ * . sy ecbngeee x, bo p Se wp 


y 


i ‘ 3 7 : os , Ss * vs teen’ ru . ye " : Lit! Sp Sno bef: 
. lke ge : 3 gigs sine Soa : ce argon lowe ue k ae a { : j : ~ : i ae : [RE Ca een eae 


Sn ie Pe Ate 


Aree, 


ASG 


